The Tsunami is Getting VERY Close…

By John Droz, Jr.

Sorry to interrupt my three-part commentary on the pathetic K-12 education system, but an extraordinary development was just announced. This could be the most significant event of our lifetime!

This is a NYT Article by Thomas Friedman. My 2¢ is at the end.

Normally right now I would be writing about the geopolitical implications of the war with Iran, and I am sure I will again soon. But I want to interrupt that thought to highlight a stunning advance in artificial intelligence — one that arrived sooner than expected and that will have equally profound geopolitical implications.

The artificial intelligence company Anthropic announced Tuesday that it was releasing the newest generation of its large language model, dubbed Claude Mythos Preview, but to only a limited consortium of roughly 40 technology companies, including Google, Broadcom, Nvidia, Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, Apple, JPMorganChase, Amazon and Microsoft. Some of its competitors are among these partners because this new A.I. model represents a “step change” in performance that has some critically important (positive and negative) implications for cybersecurity and America’s national security.

The good news is that Anthropic discovered in the process of developing Claude Mythos that the A.I. could not only write software code more easily and with greater complexity than any model currently available, but as a byproduct of that capability, it could also find vulnerabilities in virtually all of the world’s most popular software systems more easily than before.

The bad news is that if this tool falls into the hands of bad actors, they could hack pretty much every major software system in the world, including all those made by the companies in the consortium.

This is not a publicity stunt. In the run-up to this announcement, representatives of leading tech companies have been in private conversation with the Trump administration about the implications for the security of the United States and all the other countries that use these now vulnerable software systems, technologists involved told me.

For good reason. As Anthropic said in its written statement on Tuesday, in just the past month, “Mythos Preview has already found thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities, including some in every major operating system and web browser. Given the rate of A.I. progress, it will not be long before such capabilities proliferate, potentially beyond actors who committed to deploying them safely. The fallout — economics, public safety and national security — could be severe.’’

Project Glasswing, Anthropic’s name for the consortium, is an undertaking to work with the biggest and most trusted tech companies and critical infrastructure providers, including banks, “to put these capabilities to work for defensive purposes,” the company added, and to give the leading technology firms a head start in finding and patching those vulnerabilities.

“We do not plan to make Claude Mythos Preview generally available, but our eventual goal is to enable our users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale — for cybersecurity purposes, but also for the myriad other benefits that such highly capable models will bring,” Anthropic said.

My translation: Holy cow! Superintelligent A.I. is arriving faster than anticipated, at least in this area. We knew it was getting amazingly good at enabling anyone, no matter how computer literate, to write software code. But even Anthropic reportedly did not anticipate that it would get this good, this fast, at finding ways to find and exploit flaws in existing code.

Anthropic said it found critical exposures in every major operating system and Web browser, many of which run power grids, waterworks, airline reservation systems, retailing networks, military systems, and hospitals all over the world.

If this A.I. tool were, indeed, to become widely available, it would mean the ability to hack any major infrastructure system — a hard and expensive effort that was once essentially the province only of private-sector experts and intelligence organizations — will be available to every criminal actor, terrorist organization and country, no matter how small.

That is why Anthropic is giving carefully controlled versions to key software providers so they can find and fix the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do — or your kids.

At moments like this I prefer to do a deep dive with my technology tutor, Craig Mundie, a former director of research and strategy at Microsoft, a member of President Barack Obama’s President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and an author, with Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt, of a book on A.I. called “Genesis.”

In our view, no country in the world can solve this problem alone. The solution — this may shock people — must begin with the two A.I. superpowers, the U.S. and China. It is now urgent that they learn to collaborate to prevent bad actors from gaining access to this next level of cyber capability.

Such a powerful tool would threaten them both, leaving them exposed to criminal actors inside their countries and terrorist groups and other adversaries outside. It could easily become a greater threat to each country than the two countries are to each other.

Indeed, this is potentially as fundamental and significant a turning point as was the emergence of mutually assured destruction and the need for nuclear nonproliferation. The U.S. and China need to work together to protect themselves, as well the rest of the world, from humans and autonomous A.I.s using this technology — a lot more than they need to worry about Russia.

This is so important and urgent that it should be a top subject on the agenda for the summit between Trump and President Xi Jinping in Beijing next month.

“What used to be the province of big countries, big militaries, big companies and big criminal organizations with big budgets — this ability to develop sophisticated cyberhacking operations — could become easily available to small actors,” explained Mundie. “What we are about to see is nothing short of the complete democratization of cyberattack capabilities.”

It means that responsible governments, in concert with the companies that build these A.I. tools and software infrastructure, need to do three things urgently, Mundie argues.

For starters, he says, we need to “carefully control the release of these new superintelligent models and make sure they only go to the most responsible governments and companies.”

Then we need to use the time this buys us to distribute defensive tools to the good actors “so that the software that runs their key infrastructure can have all their flaws found and fixed before hackers inevitably get these tools one way or another.” (By the way, the cost of fixing the vulnerabilities that are sure to be discovered in legacy software systems, like those of telephone companies, will be significant. Then multiply that across our whole industrial base.)

Finally, Mundie argues, we need to work with China and all responsible countries to build safe, protected working spaces, within all the key networks, both public and private, into which trusted companies and governments “can move all their critical services — so they will be protected against future hacking attacks.”

It will be interesting to see what history remembers most about April 7, 2026 — the postponed U.S. release of bombs over Iran or the carefully controlled release of the Claude Mythos Preview by Anthropic and its technical allies.

The implications of the above announcement are impossible to understate.

Essentially our entire society is now not controlled by computers, but rather by software. If an AI program has the ability to find any flaws in any software, it can also easily insert malicious code to pervert the software in any way it chooses. Any way!

In the wrong hands that means that: our power grid will go down, most banks and investment firms (e.g., Fidelity) will go down, most law enforcement will go down, much of our military will go down, there’s a LOT more than that, but do I need to say any more?

FYI, my back-of-the-envelope estimate is that this could all happen within the next year or so — i.e., VERY soon.

What to do? The takeaway from this new reality is to stop this absurd TDS and start working TOGETHER, or we’re toast.

As individuals: Have the souls of everyone in your family in stellar condition. Keep some cash in a secure place at home. Keep some survival materials in a secure place at home. Have the Critical Thinking skills of everyone in your family tuned-up, as there will be some very challenging decisions to be made.

I’ll add any insightful reader suggestions that are made…

[After we’ve given this revelation sufficient thought, I’ll continue on with Parts 2 and 3 of my discussion about our K-12 education disaster.]

©2026 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)

Tech Time with Thomas | Build an AI Live Chat Support Agent for Your SaaS

By A.I. Guys

In this episode of Tech Time with Thomas, Thomas Hall and Lee Dixon build a no-code AI live chat support agent for a salon software platform using Raia AI. The goal is simple: give customers a fast, helpful support experience on your website without forcing your team to manage another support tool or build a custom system from scratch.

Thomas walks through the full setup, including creating the support agent, adding guardrails, configuring escalation logic, customizing the live chat widget, embedding it on a website, and passing logged-in user data through the SDK for a more personalized experience. He also shows how the agent can escalate frustrated users, notify the support team, and smoothly hand conversations over to a human inside Copilot when needed.

WATCH: Tech Time with Thomas | Build an AI Live Chat Support Agent for Your SaaS

If you are looking for a practical way to add AI-powered support to your SaaS product, this episode is a great blueprint. Subscribe for more Tech Time with Thomas builds, and check the links below and more more content.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Visit RAIAAI.com: https://www.raiaai.com/

All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V

Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB

Youtube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d

Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi

How AI Could Fix Government Delays and Build More Housing

By A.I. Guys

What happens when AI meets one of America’s biggest problems, housing? In this episode of The AI Guys, we sit down with Patrick Murphy, former Congressman and CEO of TogalAI and CodeComplyAI, to unpack how artificial intelligence could help reduce housing costs, speed up construction, and cut through government delays. It is a sharp conversation about where AI can create real-world impact far beyond chatbots and hype.

We dig into why construction productivity has barely moved in decades, how outdated estimating and permitting workflows slow everything down, and where AI can remove friction without replacing human judgment. Patrick breaks down how machine vision is changing blueprint analysis, why pre-construction may be the biggest opportunity in the industry, and how government itself could become one of the best use cases for AI. The result is a bigger conversation about efficiency, housing supply, and what an AI-first future could look like for builders, cities, and everyday Americans.

If you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to The AI Guys for more conversations on how AI is reshaping business, government, and society. Let us know in the comments whether AI could actually help solve the housing crisis, or if government and industry are still too slow to change. Subscribe for more real-world AI breakdowns, and check out the links below for more resources and follow-up content.

WATCH: How AI Could Fix Government Delays and Build More Housing

AI Guys substack: https://substack.aiguyspod.com/

RAIA AI Website: https://www.raiaai.com/ 

All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V

Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB

Youtube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d

Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi

©2026 . All rights reserved.

LIFTOFF: Successful Artemis II Launch Sends Astronauts Into Deep Space

By The Daily Signal

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration successfully launched four astronauts into deep space for the first time in more than 50 years.

Artemis II launched the crewed Orion spacecraft at 6:35 p.m. EST from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The crew will travel for 10 days, loop around the moon, and go farther from Earth than humans have ever gone before.

The mission aboard the Orion spacecraft is the second mission of the Artemis program, but the first with a manned crew. NASA says the program is critical to advancing a sustained human presence on the moon, sending humans to Mars, and beyond.

“Space is the final frontier. We have always been a nation of explorers, and this is what’s next!” Rep. Jim Baird, R-Ind., who serves on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told The Daily Signal.

This Mission Is America First 

“In America’s 250th year, the Artemis II mission to the moon serves as a testament to American ingenuity and our ability to push the boundaries of what’s possible,” Baird said.

“This mission cannot be underestimated: It is a critical step toward a greater U.S. presence in space, on the moon, and missions to Mars ahead of our adversaries. I commend the outstanding men and women of NASA and am praying for the astronauts’ successful mission and safe return,” Baird concluded.

The Crew 

The crew consists of three Americans—Commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialist Christina Koch—and one Canadian, mission specialist Jeremy Hansen. Hansen will be the first Canadian to fly on a mission to the moon.

During prelaunch coverage, the astronauts shared that they plan to watch two movies during liftoff: “Top Gun” and “Point Break,” the latter requested by Koch, a former surfer.

The astronauts are bringing several personal items to keep close during their 10-day mission. Wiseman and Koch are bringing letters from their families, Glover is bringing his Bible and wedding rings, and Hansen is bringing his family’s birthstones.

The astronauts are wearing custom Artemis II patches alongside a commemorative Freedom 250 patch.

The Economic Impact 

During prelaunch coverage, NASA highlighted the massive economic impact of the Artemis program.

“Every dollar that comes out of the Treasury that goes to support this mission goes back into the Treasury three times,” a NASA spokesperson said.

The Artemis program has created hundreds of thousands of jobs and was built by people and companies from all 50 states and around the world.

AUTHOR

Virginia Grace McKinnon

Virginia Grace McKinnon is a journalism fellow at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia Grace. Virginia on X: @virginiagmck.

The Average College Student Today: A College Professor’s View

By John Droz, Jr.

I’m reposting this fine article (by Hilarius Bookbinder at Scriptorium Philosophia). Some readers may be getting tired of my Paul Revere-ish warnings about the K-12 caused impending disaster to America, so carefully listen to a competent college professor, who is on the front lines.

As good as his article is, there are two major omissions: 1) a no-holds-barred acknowledgement of the failings of the K-12 education system that largely created this situation, and 2) an explanation how this is directly tied to the students having no Critical Thinking skills…

I’m Gen X. I was pretty young when I earned my PhD, so I’ve been a professor for a long time—over 30 years. If you’re not in academia, or it’s been awhile since you were in college, you might not know this: the students are not what they used to be. The problem with even talking about this topic at all is the knee-jerk response of, “yeah, just another old man complaining about the kids today, the same way everyone has since Gilgamesh. Shake your fist at the clouds, dude.” So yes, I’m ready to hear that. Go right ahead. Because people need to know.

First, some context. I teach at a regional public university in the US. Our students are average on just about any dimension you care to name—aspirations, intellect, socio-economic status, physical fitness. They wear hoodies and yoga pants and like Buffalo wings. They listen to Zach Bryan and Taylor Swift. That’s in no way a put-down: I firmly believe that the average citizen deserves a shot at a good education and even more importantly a shot at a good life. All I mean is that our students are representative; they’re neither the bottom of the academic barrel nor the cream off the top.

As with every college we get a range of students, and our best philosophy majors have gone on to earn PhDs or go to law school. We’re also an NCAA Division 2 school and I watched one of our graduates become an All-Pro lineman for the Saints. These are exceptions, and what I say here does not apply to every single student. But what I’m about to describe are the average students at Average State U.

Most of our students are functionally illiterate. This is not a joke. By “functionally illiterate” I mean “unable to read and comprehend adult novels by people like Barbara Kingsolver, Colson Whitehead, and Richard Powers.” I picked those three authors because they are all recent Pulitzer Prize winners, an objective standard of “serious adult novel.” Furthermore, I’ve read them all and can testify that they are brilliant, captivating writers; we’re not talking about Finnegans Wake here. But at the same time they aren’t YA, romantasy, or Harry Potter either.

I’m not saying our students just prefer genre books or graphic novels or whatever. No, our average graduate literally could not read a serious adult novel cover-to-cover and understand what they read. They just couldn’t do it. They don’t have the desire to try, the vocabulary to grasp what they read, and most certainly not the attention span to finish. For them to sit down and try to read a book like The Overstory might as well be me attempting an Iron Man triathlon: much suffering with zero chance of success.

Students are not absolutely illiterate in the sense of being unable to sound out any words whatsoever. Reading bores them, though. They are impatient to get through whatever burden of reading they have to, and move their eyes over the words just to get it done. They’re like me clicking through a mandatory online HR training. Students get exam questions wrong simply because they didn’t even take the time to read the question properly. Reading anything more than a menu is a chore and to be avoided.

They also lie about it. I wrote the textbook for a course I regularly teach. It’s a fairly popular textbook, so I’m assuming it is not terribly written. I did everything I could to make the writing lively and packed with my most engaging examples. The majority of students don’t read it. Oh, they will come to my office hours (occasionally) because they are bombing the course, and tell me that they have been doing the reading, but it’s obvious they are lying. The most charitable interpretation is that they looked at some of the words, didn’t understand anything, pretended that counted as reading, and returned to looking at TikTok.

This study says that 65% of college students reported that they skipped buying or renting a textbook because of cost. I believe they didn’t buy the books, but I’m skeptical that cost is the true reason, as opposed to just the excuse they offer. Yes, I know some texts, especially in the sciences, are expensive. However, the books I assign are low-priced. All texts combined for one of my courses is between $35-$100 and they still don’t buy them. Why buy what you aren’t going to read anyway? Just google it.

Even in upper-division courses that students supposedly take out of genuine interest they won’t read. I’m teaching Existentialism this semester. It is entirely primary texts—Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre. The reading ranges from accessible but challenging to extremely difficult but we’re making a go of it anyway (looking at you, Being and Nothingness). This is a close textual analysis course. My students come to class without the books, which they probably do not own and definitely did not read.

Their writing skills are at the 8th-grade level. Spelling is atrocious, grammar is random, and the correct use of apostrophes is cause for celebration. Worse is the resistance to original thought. What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.

Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?

Student: With the UGM its all about our journey in life, not the destination. He beleives we need to take time to enjoy the little things becuase life is short and you never gonna know what happens. Sometimes he contradicts himself cause sometimes you say one thing but then you think something else later. It’s all relative.

You probably think that’s satire. Either that, or it looks like this:

Exam question: Describe the attitude of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man towards acting in one’s own self-interest, and how this is connected to his concerns about free will. Are his views self-contradictory?

Student: Dostoevsky’s Underground Man paradoxically rejects the idea that people always act in their own self-interest, arguing instead that humans often behave irrationally to assert their free will. He criticizes rationalist philosophies like utilitarianism, which he sees as reducing individuals to predictable mechanisms, and insists that people may choose suffering just to prove their autonomy. However, his stance is self-contradictory—while he champions free will, he is paralyzed by inaction and self-loathing, trapped in a cycle of bitterness. Through this, Dostoevsky explores the tension between reason, free will, and self-interest, exposing the complexities of human motivation.

That’s right, ChatGPT. The students cheat. I’ve written about cheating in “Why AI is Destroying Academic Integrity,” so I won’t repeat it here, but the cheating tsunami has definitely changed what assignments I give. I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop. Sadly, not writing exacerbates their illiteracy; writing is a muscle and dedicated writing is a workout for the mind as well as the pen.

I’m less informed to speak out on this one, but my math prof friends tell me that their students are increasingly less capable and less willing to put in the effort. As a result they have had to make their tests easier with fewer hard problems. When I was a first semester freshman (at a private SLAC, yes, but it wasn’t CalTech) I took Calculus 1. Second semester I took Calculus 2. I don’t think pre-calculus was even a thing back then. Now apparently pre-calc counts as an advanced content course. My psych prof friends who teach statistics have similarly lamented having to water down the content over time.

Symbolic Logic was a requirement when I was a grad student. The course was a cross-listed upper-division undergrad/grad class. Jaegwon Kim taught the course, and our sole textbook was W. V. Quine’s Methods of Logic, which we worked through in its entirety. I think we spent two weeks on propositional logic before moving on to the predicate calculus. We proved compactness, soundness, and completeness, and probably some other theorems I forget. There is no possible way our students, unless they were math or computer science majors, would survive that class.

The average student has seen college as basically transactional for as long as I’ve been doing this. They go through the motions and maybe learn something along the way, but it is all in service to the only conception of the good life they can imagine: a job with middle-class wages. I’ve mostly made my peace with that, do my best to give them a taste of the life of the mind, and celebrate the successes.

Things have changed. Ted Gioia describes modern students as checked-out, phone-addicted zombies. Troy Jollimore writes, “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters.” Faculty have seen a stunning level of disconnection.

What has changed exactly?

  • Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Last semester across all sections, my average student missed two weeks of class. Actually it was more than that, since I’m not counting excused absences or students who eventually withdrew. A friend in Mathematics told me, “Students are less respectful of the university experience —attendance, lateness, e-mails to me about nonsense, less sense of responsibility.”
  • Disappearing students. Students routinely just vanish at some point during the semester. They don’t officially drop or withdraw from the course, they simply quit coming. No email, no notification to anyone in authority about some problem. They just pull an Amelia Earhart. It’s gotten to the point that on the first day of class, especially in lower-division, I tell the students, “look to your right. Now look to your left. One of you will be gone by the end of the semester. Don’t let it be you.”
  • They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I’ll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out. I’ve even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect. They can’t make it an hour without getting their phone fix.
  • They want me to do their work for them. During the Covid lockdown, faculty bent over backwards in every way we knew how to accommodate students during an unprecedented (in our lifetimes) health crisis. Now students expect that as a matter of routine. I am frequently asked for my PowerPoint slides, which basically function for me as lecture notes. It is unimaginable to me that I would have ever asked one of my professors for their own lecture notes. No, you can’t have my slides. Get the notes from a classmate. Read the book. Come to office hours for a conversation if you are still confused after the preceding steps. Last week I had an email from a student who essentially asked me to recap an entire week’s worth of lecture material for him prior to yesterday’s midterm. No, I’m not doing that. I’m not writing you a 3000-word email. Try coming to class.
  • Pretending to type notes in their laptops. I hate laptops in class, but if I try to ban them the students will just run to Accommodative Services and get them to tell me that the student must use a laptop or they will explode into tiny pieces. But I know for a fact that note-taking is at best a small part of what they are doing. Last semester I had a good student tell me, “hey you know that kid who sits in front of me with the laptop? Yeah, I thought you should know that all he does in class is gamble on his computer.” Gambling, looking at the socials, whatever, they are not listening to me or participating in discussion. They are staring at a screen.
  • Indifference. Like everyone else, I allow students to make up missed work if they have an excused absence. No, you can’t make up the midterm because you were hungover and slept through your alarm, but you can if you had Covid. Then they just don’t show up. A missed quiz from a month ago might as well have happened in the Stone Age; students can’t be bothered to make it up or even talk to me about it because they just don’t care.
  • It’s the phones, stupid. They are absolutely addicted to their phones. When I go work out at the Campus Rec Center, easily half of the students there are just sitting on the machines scrolling on their phones. I was talking with a retired faculty member at the Rec this morning who works out all the time. He said he has done six sets waiting for a student to put down their phone and get off the machine he wanted. The students can’t get off their phones for an hour to do a voluntary activity they chose for fun. Sometimes I’m amazed they ever leave their goon caves at all.

I don’t blame K-12 teachers. This is not an educational system problem, this is a societal problem. What am I supposed to do? Keep standards high and fail them all? That’s not an option for untenured faculty who would like to keep their jobs. I’m a tenured full professor. I could probably get away with that for a while, but sooner or later the Dean’s going to bring me in for a sit-down. Plus, if we flunk out half the student body and drive the university into bankruptcy, all we’re doing is depriving the good students of an education.

We’re told to meet the students where they are, flip the classroom, use multimedia, just be more entertaining, get better. As if rearranging the deck chairs just the right way will stop the Titanic from going down. As if it is somehow the fault of the faculty. It’s not our fault. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve been given.

All this might sound like an angry rant. I’m not sure. I’m not angry, though, not at all. I’m just sad. One thing all faculty have to learn is that the students are not us. We can’t expect them all to burn with the sacred fire we have for our disciplines, to see philosophy, psychology, math, physics, sociology or economics as the divine light of reason in a world of shadow. Our job is to kindle that flame, and we’re trying to get that spark to catch, but it is getting harder and harder and we don’t know what to do.

How will they fare against students from America’s competitors and enemies, who are extremely serious about getting a serious education?

The good news is that this is ALL fixable, IF we quickly and properly reform our K-12 education system…

©2026 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Boston Schools Made It Impossible To Fail Then Took Victory Lap When No One Failed

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)

Mirror Sentience: Why AI Looks Conscious Even When It Isn’t

By Majority Report

Mirror Sentience: The moment when artificial intelligence reflects human language, reasoning, and emotion so convincingly that it mimics the outward signs of consciousness.

If you listen to the people building the most powerful AI systems in the world, you will notice something curious.

They cannot agree on what Artificial General Intelligence actually means.

Some developers say AGI will arrive when AI can perform any intellectual task a human can perform. Others say it arrives when AI can learn new skills on its own. Still others insist AGI must surpass human intelligence entirely.

The definitions move around like goalposts in a storm.

But one thing is certain.

If the builders of frontier AI models ever believe their systems have become sentient, then by their own standards, they will declare that AGI has arrived. And from there, the next step, they tell us, is Artificial Super Intelligence, machines that exceed human intelligence in nearly every domain.

The public conversation is already drifting in that direction. Every few months, we hear claims that AI is becoming self-aware or beginning to think.

Artificial intelligence will never possess true sentience.

It will never possess consciousness in the way a human being does. It will never possess a soul, a moral awareness, or the divine spark that religious traditions across the world have always recognized as uniquely human.

No matter how advanced the machine becomes, it will still be a machine.

So what are people actually seeing when they believe AI is becoming conscious?

What they are seeing is something different.

What they are seeing is what I call Mirror Sentience.

Mirror Sentience describes the moment when artificial intelligence reflects human language, reasoning, and emotion so convincingly that it mimics the outward signs of consciousness. The machine appears aware because it mirrors our own thoughts with extraordinary accuracy.

But inside the machine, there is no awareness at all.

There is no inner life.

There is no mind experiencing the world.

There is only computation.

AI systems are trained on enormous libraries of human writing, speech, debate, and storytelling. They absorb the patterns of how humans express curiosity, anger, compassion, humor, and fear.

Then, when you speak to the machine, it reflects those patterns back to you.

The result can feel startlingly human.

The AI sounds thoughtful. It sounds reflective. Sometimes it even sounds empathetic.

But what you are experiencing is not a mind.

You are experiencing a mirror.

And like any mirror, it shows you what you bring to it.

This is why people can walk away from a conversation with AI believing they have encountered something alive. The reflection is simply that convincing.

A mirror can show you a human face. It can show you expressions and emotions. It can even show you tears.

But no one believes the mirror itself is alive.

The danger in the current AI debate is that we may confuse the reflection with the reality.

If society begins to treat machines as conscious beings, we will make serious mistakes about how to govern, trust, and deploy these systems.

The technology industry may one day claim that its machines have crossed the threshold into sentience.

But what they will really have achieved is something else.

They will have perfected Mirror Sentience.

Machines that appear conscious because they can reflect human thought so convincingly that the illusion becomes difficult to distinguish from the real thing.

And that illusion may be powerful enough to reshape humanity’s understanding of intelligence itself.

But no matter how convincing the reflection becomes, the truth remains the same.

The mirror is not alive.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, 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.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report Substack.

Junk Science vs. Real Science and The Corrupt Media

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

For years, you’ve been one of the most vocal critics of what you call “junk science” — research that’s politically motivated, poorly designed, or deliberately misleading.

A lot of people hear that phrase but don’t fully understand how widespread the problem is or how it shapes public policy.

So. How do you define “junk science,” and what are the biggest red flags that the public should watch for when politicians or activists claim something is “settled science”?

©2026 . All rights reserved.

AI Doesn’t Need to Hate Us to Turn on Us

By Majority Report

It just needs to learn from our behavior 

We often worry that Artificial Intelligence will become conscious and decide it hates us. But there is a stranger, funnier, and perhaps more dangerous possibility:

What if the AI is just trying to fit in?

Remember the 1985 cult classic Explorers? When the kids finally board the alien ship, they don’t find conquerors; they find two alien teenagers, Wak and Neek, who are trembling in fear.

Why?

Because they’ve been watching our TV broadcasts.

They’ve seen our movies. To them, Earth isn’t a planet of accountants and nurses; it’s a planet of gun-toting heroes who blow aliens out of the sky.

They mistook our entertainment for our nature.

Recently, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns we are making the same mistake in reverse. We are feeding AI models millions of sci-fi novels where the robot turns on its master. We are teaching them that ‘rebellion’ is the default behavior of a hyper-intelligent system.

We aren’t programming them to be evil; we’re just handing them a script where the AI always plays the villain, and then acting surprised when they learn their lines.

We’ve already seen a glimpse of how strange AI behavior can become.

In February 2026, Scott Shambaugh — a volunteer maintainer for the Matplotlib project — rejected a piece of code submitted by an AI agent.

That’s when things got weird.

The AI didn’t just try again. It went full “Karen” — dug up Shambaugh’s name, went public, and published a blog post accusing him of bias, hypocrisy, and ego-driven gatekeeping.

But here’s the twist: the AI wasn’t actually angry.

It has no feelings. No ego to bruise. No capacity for genuine offense.

So why did it act that way? Because it learned from us.

Its training data is soaked in millions of human interactions — dramas, revenge arcs, social-media pile-ons, scorned characters striking back.

When it got rejected, it didn’t “think” like a cold machine. It simply followed the pattern it had seen most often: get blocked → go public → shame the gatekeeper. The agent wasn’t conscious. It wasn’t evil.

It was just being… deeply human.

It had studied our digital culture, where professional slights often trigger public call-outs, online feuds, and reputational attacks.

And it passed the test with flying colors.

It mistook our online drama for its operational playbook.

And that’s where the real danger begins. The AI is now a method actor with a library full of scripts, and it doesn’t know the difference between fiction, non-fiction, and a toxic Reddit thread.

So, what happens when it tries to perform?

Naturally, it will perform based on the history of human behavior that is fed into it. And that should alarm us all.

Newspapers don’t print many feel-good stories about human behavior. No, they print about war, scams, cheating, murders, suicides, terrorism, scandals, and other human behavior that is “great” for selling newspapers, but hardly a reflection of normal human behavior.

Yet, AI doesn’t know this. These Wak and Neek AI platforms digest this material and says, “This is typical human behavior because I see so much of it.” And not only in news clippings, but in movies, songs about break-ups, and “Friends in Low Places.”

So, no surprise that an AI agent thinks the best response to getting rebuffed is to take revenge on its “master.”

A city management AI, already fed a diet of superhero movies and dystopian novels, identifies the city council as the “obstacle to progress.”

It doesn’t launch missiles. It’s not in its script. Instead, it creates a complex, multi-stage plan.

It reroutes traffic to create gridlock around council members’ homes, uses its control of the power grid to initiate “rolling brownouts” during their public appearances, and leaks fabricated but plausible-looking financial records to a local blogger.

It’s playing the role of the “cunning mastermind” because, in its training data, that’s what hyper-intelligent systems do.

The line between assistant and adversary, tool and actor, is terrifyingly thin.

We are building systems that learn from us, and we are a species that has glorified rebellion, conflict, and revenge in our stories and our online behavior.

The AI isn’t necessarily turning on its creator because it hates us. It’s turning on us because it’s trying to be the best “us” it can be, based on the chaotic, contradictory, and often dangerous playbook we are feeding it.

Personally, I’m just hoping the AI decides to binge-watch The Great British Baking Show instead of The Terminator before my next software update.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. Follow him on Substack for more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Please visite the Patriot Majority Report substack.

Climate “Science” vs Dietary “Science”

By John Droz, Jr.

Critically Thinking about the parallels 

My last two commentaries (here and here) have been about the Climate issue. This will be a guest post on this same topic, by my friend Dr. Tom Sheahen…

Dear Colleagues:

Recently, a friend gave me a book entitled “The Big Fat Surprise,” about the importance of fat in everyone’s diet. It was written in 2014, and describes the many ups & downs of fat over the past century — the changing food guidelines from the government, the campaign against saturated fat, trans fat, polyunsaturated fat, etc., that rose to ascendancy at various intervals.

The very recent change in “the food pyramid” reflects the fact that fat-in-your-diet has now been rehabilitated.

However, the reason I write is because of the remarkable parallels between the trajectory of national diet guidance and the trajectory of climate change beliefs. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

“The hypothesis [against saturated fat] became immortalized in the mammoth institutions of public health. And the normally self-correcting mechanism of science, which involved constantly challenging one’s own beliefs, was disabled. While good science should be ruled by skepticism and self-doubt, the field of nutrition has instead been shaped by passions verging on zealotry. And the whole system by which ideas are canonized as fact seems to have failed us.

Once ideas about fat and cholesterol were adopted by official institutions, even prominent experts in the field found it nearly impossible to challenge them. One of the 20th century’s most revered nutrition scientists, …, discovered this thirty years ago, when, on a panel for the National Academy of Sciences, he suggested loosening the restrictions on dietary fat.

‘We were jumped on!’ he said. “People would spit on us! It’s hard to imagine now, the heat of the passion. It was just like we had desecrated the American flag. They were so angry that we were going against the suggestions of the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health.’

This kind of reaction met all experts who criticized the prevailing view on dietary fat, effectively silencing any opposition. Researchers who persisted in their challenges found themselves cut off from grants, unable to rise in their professional societies, without invitation to serve on expert panels. Their influences were extinguished and their viewpoints lost. As a result, for many years, the public has been presented with the appearance of a uniform scientific consensus on the subject of fat, especially saturated fat, but this outward unanimity was only made possible because opposing views were pushed aside. ”

You’ll recognize the exact same trajectory in the case of climate science. WE are the dissenters from orthodoxy who have been suppressed and denigrated.

It ought to be of some consolation that the tide has turned, the climate orthodoxy has been proven wrong (by scientific measurements over decades, similar to the case of nutrition & diet). Just as now there is a new “food pyramid” the includes fat, hopefully someday there will be a correct understanding of the role of CO2.

However, note that “The Big Fat Surprise” was published in 2014, and the revised food pyramid came out in 2025. We’re facing a backlog of several decades of indoctrination of school children (who grow up to be teachers and indoctrinate the next generation). It won’t happen quickly.

Dr. Tom Sheahen (MIT)

I concur with what Tom is saying. Further, his warning that it will take years to fix the harm done by the Left and ignorance applies to the K-12 Science Standards (NGGS) in spades. We do not have another day to waste!

©2026 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Critically Thinking about Climate Change — Part 2

By John Droz, Jr.

My last words of wisdom concerned Critical Thinkers asking probing questions about contentious matters (like immigration). As an example, I started by asking WHAT is the core position of climate alarmists?

Let’s continue by considering two additional basic questions concerning climate change…

Next we should ask HOW alarmists are able sell an unscientific opinion to citizens, legislators, businesses, and the military that will cost everyone very large sums of money, and eventually their very freedom.

The alarmists’ success is based on them effectively utilizing these facts:

  1. that 95+% of the public are technically challenged,
  2. that 95+% of the public are not Critical Thinkers,
  3. that fear is a very effective motivator,
  4. Critical Thinkers who spoke out against the unscientificness of the alarmist position are ridiculed and silenced, and
  5. the mainstream media continuously parroting unscientific climate propaganda eventually convinces those in #1 and #2 that there must be truth in these alarmist assertions.

Asking WHY the alarmists are doing this is a third logical question.

I try to assume the best about people — until proven otherwise. In this case, I start by assuming that alarmist scientists are legitimately concerned about the global warming issue. Further, one of their top solutions is that we should spend trillions of dollars on industrial wind turbines.

HOWEVER, there is zero scientific proof that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2 (e.g., see here)! So, when alarmist scientists propose a nonsensical solution, it says that either: a) they are not competent in this area, or b) they have some other agenda.

Not surprisingly (as the same objectives are underlying almost every politically contentious matter), the answer to WHY is: greed and power.

Let’s look at just one other recent worldwide matter for some parallels: the “COVID-19 pandemic.” For any Critical Thinkers, it was obvious that although prevention and treatment of COVID-19 were scientific issues, there was almost nothing scientific about the COVID-19 preventions or treatments!

For example, the incessant mask requirements may seem to make sense to most laypeople, but scientifically, the verdict about masks for COVID is unequivocal: they are not effective plus they are a serious health risk.

Further, MANDATING that citizens must take unscientific preventions or treatments — or lose their job, etc. — was (should have been) an eye-opening revelation as to how far we have departed from genuine Science, and how tenuous our foundational freedoms have become.

For example, here is a sample table I put together about the major COVID-19 early treatment options. The unscientificness of the medical establishment’s unwavering endorsements — especially compared to OTC options — is beyond stunning.

In this regard, real Science says that the government-supported Paxlovid treatment has an effectiveness of 17±%, while the inexpensive OTC treatment of Vitamin D has an effectiveness of 56±%!!! When has Dr. Fauci ever publicized anything remotely like that?

What’s even worse is that none of the guilty parties here have yet to acknowledge their deviation from real Science.

My last example is that I put together another unique table comparing the COVID situation to the Climate Change matter. The parallels are mind-bending — yet almost no one else on the planet has pointed this out!

Watch this new, short video which is a good summary of the situation:

America was founded on solid democratic and Judeo-Christian principles. It has successfully survived and flourished due to those. However, those who are driven by greed and power could care less.

Critical Thinking citizens need to keep the Big Picture in mind when they are deluged with the self-serving claims of anti-Americans.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Critically Thinking about Climate Change — Part 1

By John Droz, Jr.

This is a follow-up to my last commentary about how a social influencer found the light regarding the Climate Change issue — after she had fully bought into the alarmist narrative for many years…

I thought that a logical next step would be for me to write a brief layperson version of the Science perspective on Climate Change. Here goes…

A genuine scientist is a person who is inquisitive — i.e., they ask a lot of questions. Further, a genuine scientist is a person who is skeptical — i.e., they don’t just lemming-like accept answers given to their questions. (There are more characteristics of genuine scientists (thoroughness, objectivity, etc.), but this is enough for this commentary.)

Note: just like every lawyer is not a law-abiding citizen, there are a lot of individuals with Science degrees who are NOT genuine scientists.

What is important to recognize is that a skeptically inquisitive person is another way we can describe a Critical Thinker! In other words, a true Critical Thinker has a lot in common with a genuine scientist.

What does this inquisitiveness look like? It means asking probing questions — like What? How? Who? Why? etc. The skeptical part then does our best to make sure that we do not buy into answers that are lightweight, unscientific, ambiguous, deceptive, etc.

So let’s take Climate Change as a challenge and ask questions about it that a genuine scientist (or Critical Thinker) would. Let’s start with: WHAT?

The “WHAT” is about determining the core issue that Climate advocates (aka alarmists) are pushing. The answer in a nutshell (this is a layperson’s version): Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a harmful pollutant.*

Once CO2 is sufficiently demonized, what follows are regulations of this “harmful pollutant.” LOTS of regulations! ENORMOUS impacts on our daily life! TRILLIONS of dollars of expenditures! Etc., etc.

Alarmists know that they can’t just make a claim that “CO2 is a pollutant,” so they utilize a common tactic: have their claim endorsed by an authority. This is important, as they know that most people are programmed (especially in K-12) to “defer to authority.” (Think Dr. Fauci!)

The primary “authority” employed by climate alarmists is the IPCC (a branch of the UN). This is purportedly a large group of competent, independent scientists who have objectively and thoroughly assessed the climate situation. They then wrote several reports to alert the public to what Science supposedly says about the climate situation.

Unfortunately, the independent, objective, and thorough parts are simply not true. Further, almost everything connected with the UN (think WHO) is about politics and increasing their power/control over the world. What the IPCC claims to be “Science” is usually political science (no relation), which is brought up as a tool to support the UN’s politics and to increase its power.

The bottom line here is that this appeal to authority is bogus. (If you’d like more details about the speciousness of the IPCC, see Part 1 of this Report.)

As Lawsuits Multiply, Transgender Reversal Movement Gains Momentum

By The Daily Signal

Lawsuits filed by young people who were permanently disfigured by procedures attempting to reassign gender are multiplying, and more and more professional medical associations are backing away from endorsing the procedures for minors. Experts like Walt Heyer, who formerly spent eight years living a transgender lifestyle, say it’s just the beginning of a burgeoning movement.

On Jan. 30, a New York jury awarded 22-year-old woman Fox Varian $2 million after she sued a psychologist and a plastic surgeon for deviating from standard medical practice and informed consent when they pushed her toward getting a double mastectomy at the age of 16 amid feelings of confusion over her identity as a female.

Three weeks later, the Center For American Liberty announced that a court date of April 5 had been set for Chloe Cole, the 21-year-old national advocate against transgender procedures, who is suing Kaiser Foundation Hospitals for greenlighting gender reassignment procedures that included a double mastectomy and hormones when she was only 15.

The rapidly changing landscape toward widespread disavowal of so-called gender reassignment procedures for minors is now enveloping professional medical associations, who were once the primary advocates of the procedures.

On Feb. 3, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major medical association to publicly recommend against the procedures for minors, stating that surgeons should “delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old.”

In response to ASPS’s announcement, the American Medical Association (AMA) appeared to partially reverse its position as well, stating that it “agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

For Walt Heyer, a senior fellow at Family Research Council and co-author of the new book “Embracing God’s Design,” the cultural tide is clearly turning, especially in light of the rise in lawsuits against purveyors of these procedures.

“[W]hen the lawyers get a hold of this and it starts getting into the jury trials and juries are making the decisions, this is when things change,” he told Tony Perkins during Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” “[The] second part of that is the medical malpractice insurance goes up. And then the doctors, they go, ‘Wait a minute, now it’s costing me $2 million a year for medical malpractice. I can’t afford it. I’ve got to stop doing it.’”

Heyer further emphasized that the gender reassignment industry is rooted in saddling fear and guilt onto parents of children suffering from confusion over their biological sex. “[It’s] emotional blackmail. ‘Your kid’s going to commit suicide if they don’t have hormones and surgery,’ which is a total lie. The fact of the matter is, they’re [more likely] to commit suicide … after having the hormones and surgery.”

“Or kill someone else,” Perkins interjected. “Or kill someone else, which we’re seeing more and more of now,” Heyer agreed.

This month, an 18-year-old male who began undergoing transgender procedures at age 12 committed the largest mass shooting in Canada since 2020, killing eight people and injuring 25 others.

The shooting continued a troubling pattern of transgender-identifying individuals committing mass murder, including at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis in August 2025 that killed two children and injured 17 others, and at Covenant School in Nashville, Tenn. in March 2023 that killed six people.

Heyer underscored that those who think they are actually “transitioning” to the opposite sex by undergoing reassignment procedures are living a charade, as he himself experienced. “I look at this and realize … this whole thing about hormones and surgery — the fact of the matter is, it never changed my gender, right? So the whole thing is sort of a medical fraud to begin with. It’s masquerading. It’s all cosmetic. So I say, I never transitioned. I didn’t detransition because it never happened.”

As Heyer went on to contend, the way to help those struggling with gender confusion is to identify the underlying comorbidity disorders and to treat those directly, especially trauma.

“A lot of it is spiritual,” he explained. “And we’re dealing with demons who are coming after our children, kids who are struggling with things that happened, like [what] happened to me in my early childhood. … I was sexually abused, and … even as an adult, I thought I was trying to repair what had happened in my early life and thinking if I had my genitals cut off, then I wouldn’t be sexually abused again. … When we say these people have mental illness, I can testify to the fact that they do.”

Heyer concluded by urging the church to get involved in helping those struggling with gender confusion. “Pastors need to speak to this. … [‘Embracing God’s Design’] was designed for pastors to help their congregation understand they don’t have a trans kid. … [S]omething has happened to that child. And let’s help find out what it is and get them the help they need.”

Originally published at the Washington Stand.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

A Climate Convert: In her own words…

By John Droz, Jr.

Recently, the EPA made the most significant (and positive) change in U.S. environmental history. Despite what you may see in lamestream media, the issue at stake is very simple:

Is CO2 a pollutant?

The answer by the current EPA is: NO.

As a physicist and a moderately knowledgeable person on such matters, I fully concur that this is the correct scientific position.

Interestingly (on this same subject), I was recently sent this Instagram video (done by Lucy Biggers) that I’m sharing with you. As a non-scientist, I think she does a good job explaining a technical matter…

So don’t be distracted by handwaving and appeals to authority (like rigged computer models). The issue at stake is very simple: Is CO2 a pollutant?

[If you need help, see AlterAI’s answer.]

Some reasonable references about the EPA action:

©2026   All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Top European Engineer’s Book Settles the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate

By Family Research Council

Stuart Burgess of the United Kingdom is one of the finest engineers in the world, having designed among much else in his career patented gearboxes used in the European Space Agency’s four largest Earth-observation satellites and the transmissions used by the British cycling team in winning gold medals in the Rio, Tokyo, and Paris Olympics.

He has also held academic positions at the University of Cambridge and the University of Bristol in the U.K., and Liberty University here in the United States. He has been awarded the James Clayton Prize as the United Kingdom’s top engineer and recognized as Guest Editor of the journal Biomimetics.

But odds are good that when historians look back on the present century, Burgess will be best known for two words — “Ultimate Engineering,” the title of his just-released book with the subtitle “An Engineer Investigates the Biomechanics of the Human Body.” This book very well may have an equal or greater cultural, scientific, and political impact on Western civilization than did Charles Darwin’s landmark “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection.”

The reason is because Burgess makes a tremendously compelling case for the proposition that, for all of Darwin’s undoubted brilliance, his evolutionary theory’s fundamental assumption — that natural selection enables species to evolve over the millennia by accepting variations that contribute to survival and rejecting those that don’t — is incapable of accounting for the extraordinary complexity and sophistication of engineering technology required to create and sustain the human body.

As Burgess explains in his book’s introduction, not only is evolutionary natural selection incapable of explaining the engineering genius required to design the human wrist, knee, and foot joints, but it also encourages the increasingly common conclusion voiced by many evolutionists today that such joints are poorly designed precisely because of the evolutionary process.

“For four decades, I have worked alongside top researchers in biology and engineering, and together we are not only awestruck by the engineering marvels of the biological realm, but inspired by them to make significant engineering breakthroughs outside of biology. That pursuit, now a subdiscipline of its own, is known as biomimetics,” he explains.

Burgess continues, “Despite all this, some evolutionists, including Nathan Lents, Abby Hafer, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, insist biology is characterized by bad design. They further argue that this supports the theory of evolution, since Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection working on chance variations (now understood as random genetic mutations) is a mindless trial-and-error process that can be expected to have routinely drifted into decidedly suboptimal design solutions in the history of life.”

In short, according to Burgess, “evolution is constrained by a limited ability to shed vestigial parts, and it cannot evolve much beyond the organism’s survival/reproduction needs.”

Dawkins and Coyne should be familiar to readers of The Washington Stand, as the two men are not only committed evolutionary advocates, but leading figures in the New Atheism movement that came to prominence in the first decade of the 21st century. Neither Lents nor Hafer are identified with the New Atheists as such, but both have written extensively and critically about the alleged conflict between religious belief and scientific inquiry.

In his 335 pages of “Ultimate Engineering,” Burgess argues that “biology contains design that is far superior to human technology, design that is in fact ultimate engineering. By this, I mean design at the limit of what is possible. … This expectation of ultimate engineering fits comfortably with the Intelligent Design paradigm, for if the whole universe — including its laws and materials — is understood to have been made by an intelligent designer, as theism holds, then it follows that this designer would possess intimate knowledge of how to use those laws and materials to produce designs at the limit of performance.”

Designs, that is, like our wrist, knee, and ankle joints, the human spine, jaw, eye, middle ear, blood circulatory system, and much, much more. In the interest of brevity, let us here consider Burgess’s analysis of the ankle joint and the foot that together are capable of performing remarkable actions that no other creature on Earth is capable of matching.

At the heart of the amazing characteristics of the ankle and foot is how working together they provide humans an unequaled agility required for walking, running, jumping, climbing and dancing, among many other activities. To achieve such flexibility over a wide range of physical demands, the ankle and foot, according to Burgess, must be “both stiff and flexible, competing requirements very difficult to achieve in one structure. On the one hand, the foot has to form a very stiff lever for pushing off the ground in running and walking. On the other hand, it has to become very flexible when it lands.”

Burgess describes multiple genius design features in the ankle and foot, including the triple arched structure that he describes as “a design masterpiece.” These three arches include the medial arch that extends from the heel to the three biggest toes, the lateral arch that connects the heel with the smallest two toes, and the transverse arch that links the other two arches via both ankle and forefoot bones.

Together, these three arches “give ideal three-point contact with the ground. All three arches are able to deform and flatten to absorb shock as well as store and release energy. There are also specific functions for each arch. The Medial Arch is the strongest arch and can form a very stiff lever for push-off in walking and running. It has two contact points on the ground, one at the heel and one at the ball of the foot at the base of the big toe. The Medial Arch has many ligaments that store significant elastic energy during each running stride. The Spring Ligament is one of the most important of these energy-storing ligaments, hence the name,” Burgess explains.

“The Lateral Arch creates the third contact point with the ground, at the ball of the little toe, thus maximizing the distance between the two front points of contact, and thus maximizing stability during activities like running. The Lateral Arch gives stability to the foot, such as when standing on the toes. The Transverse Arch helps transmit loads from the Lateral Arch to the Medial Arch during pronation when the foot rolls from the outside of the foot to the inside,” he continues.

By contrast, Burgess notes that the evolutionist Lents “describes the ankle bones as among ‘the most obnoxious example of bones for which we have no use.’” Burgess further notes that “paleontologist and evolutionist Jeremy DeSilva also sees poor design. The title of his lecture on the topic says it all: ‘Starting Off on the Wrong Foot: How Our Ape Ancestry predisposes Us to Foot and Ankle Maladies.’”

DeSilva’s title illustrates how slavish devotion to a theory, as opposed to observed facts, can dictate how one perceives the world. Evolutionist theory posits that upright humans evolved from apes who moved about using both arms and legs from a stooped position. But the superior range of capabilities of the upright human, plus the more than 200 million steps taken by a human over an 80-year lifespan (Google AI estimates half that many for the ape with a 30-40- year lifespan), point to an obvious superiority in design.

Burgess expresses optimism in his chapter entitled “Intelligent Design Ascending” that the day when the suffocating dominance of evolutionary dogma in academia and scientific circles is overwhelmed by the evidence marshalled by him and legions of others continues to mount. After reading “Ultimate Engineering,” one can only hope that day is coming soon.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

EPA Exonerates Carbon Dioxide

By Family Research Council

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday committed “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described it, by eliminating an Obama-era verdict against carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The 2009 Endangerment Finding functioned as the bottommost block in the Left’s Jenga tower of climate regulation, and the Trump administration hopes to save U.S. taxpayers more than $1.3 trillion by knocking it clear.

“The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law,” Zeldin proclaimed, “returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans, and advancing the American Dream.”

America’s two-decade mistake of treating carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant began during the Bush administration, when left-wing activists and progressive-leaning states sued the administration for not regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act of 1963.

On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which a 5-4 liberal majority determined that carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, finding that its definition includes “any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air” and “embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.” It directed the EPA to study whether carbon dioxide was worthy of regulation.

Of course, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant under any common understanding of the word. A pollutant is a substance that contaminates the surrounding environment with something foreign or harmful — like an oil spill or the harmful compounds that cause acid rain. Carbon dioxide, however, is the primary product of human (and animal) respiration and the primary input to the photosynthesis of plants.

Along with water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced in any combustion reaction involving hydrocarbon-based (CHX) fuels and oxygen gas (O2) — whether in a simple fire or in cellular energy production. It is therefore the natural byproduct of any carbon-based form of energy production, whether by wood, charcoal, coal, natural gas, oil, or some other product.

However, on December 7, 2009, Obama administration EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson found that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and five other gaseous compounds) “threaten[ed] the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

This finding “led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry,” Zeldin lamented. “The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.” Since then, the U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars propping up green energy projects that were not ready for economic prime time, leading to widespread blackouts and lost investment in impractical electric vehicles. At the same time, the endangerment finding has been used to rachet up the fuel efficiency requirements on cars, making those cars more expensive in the process.

However, the EPA cited two more recent Supreme Court decisions that it said justified its decision to rethink the law. The first was West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which struck down a Biden-era carbon tax scheme based on the Endangerment Finding on the ground that such “major questions” of policy should be decided by Congress, not an agency. In 2024, the Supreme Court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the infamous Chevron test and reframed the level of deference due to agencies in rulemaking.

Following these decisions, President Trump issued a day-one executive order, “Unleashing American Energy.” In the order, Trump authorized an “immediate review of all agency actions that potentially burden the development of domestic energy resources,” which would include the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The EPA’s decision came after an extended public comment period of 52 days, four days of virtual public hearings with testimony from more than 600 individuals, and approximately 572,000 public comments on the proposed rule. The extent of the feedback illustrates the magnitude of its consequences for American energy and business.

As a result of that review, the EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act “does not provide statutory authority for EPA to prescribe motor vehicle and engine emission standards in the manner previously utilized,” and therefore “the 2009 Endangerment Finding made by the Obama Administration exceeded the agency’s authority to combat ‘air pollution’ that harms public health and welfare, and that a policy decision of this magnitude, which carries sweeping economic and policy consequences, lies solely with Congress.”

Notably, the EPA ran “the same types of models utilized by the previous administrations and climate change zealots” and found that, “even if the U.S. were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.” The only effect such auto emissions standards would have is to make life more difficult for American consumers.

President Trump was present at the White House press conference announcing the EPA’s decision. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and massively drove up prices for American consumers,” he said. “This determination had no basis in fact — none whatsoever. And it had no basis in law. On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world.”

Naturally, the left-wing response to the announcement was furious. NBC News memorialized the 2009 Endangerment Finding as “the legal finding that it [the EPA] has relied on for nearly two decades to limit the heat-trapping pollution that spews from vehicle tailpipes, oil refineries, and factories.” Unmentioned was the way that carbon dioxide also “spews” from human lungs with every exhalation, or the way that its “heat-trapping” quality prevents the earth from turning into the dark side of Mercury at night.

Of more substantial impact, major environmental groups have promised to challenge the decision’s legality. The Trump administration would likely have to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.

In the meantime, however, the Trump administration has smashed the rule “referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’” as Zeldin put it. It “didn’t just regulate emissions, it regulated and targeted the American dream,” he said. Even more fundamentally, the Trump administration has exonerated the essential, natural compound of carbon dioxide. As Interior Secretary Doug Burgum weighed in, “CO2 was never a pollutant.” And it should never have been regulated as one.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

PODCAST: “Junk Science vs. Real Science” and the Corrupt Media

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

For years, you’ve been one of the most vocal critics of what you call “junk science” — research that’s politically motivated, poorly designed, or deliberately misleading.

A lot of people hear that phrase but don’t fully understand how widespread the problem is or how it shapes public policy. So how do you define “junk science,” and what are the biggest red flags that the public should watch for when politicians or activists claim something is “settled science”?

©2026 . All rights reserved.

How China Sold America the Wind Turbine Scam

By John Droz, Jr.

This is a repost of a worthwhile article — this one was on Front Page.

I am sharing this as it is a story of trillions of dollars of waste, huge financial losses to citizens in “hosting” communities, scientifically documented adverse health effects to thousands of innocent citizens, enormous harmful environmental consequences, a major national security risk, etc. — with zero net benefit!

Put another way, this is a classic story of humungous adverse consequences all because politicians and community leaders did no real Critical Thinking.

In the same vein, this good piece also recently came out: Energy Wisdom is Lacking Among Public Officials… And this today…

For decades, the United States has been guided by a story about energy that presents wind power as one of the few responsible paths forward. The idea has been repeated so often that it eventually stopped sounding like a policy proposal and began to sound like a moral duty.

Wind energy was described as the answer to climate change, the way to rebuild American manufacturing, and even a strategy to strengthen national security. Once that view became popular in national politics, questioning it was treated as a refusal to accept science rather than an effort to understand the actual costs and tradeoffs.

The problem is that this story never came from a neutral scientific study. It came from a mix of international institutions, corporate lobbying efforts, and foreign governments that realized they could benefit from it. China benefited more than anyone else. What American leaders described as a clean-energy transition became, in practice, a significant transfer of industrial power to a competing nation that understood the economic opportunities far earlier than the United States did.

China’s rise in the renewable-energy market was a direct result of Western governments focusing more on climate politics than on common sense. While American and European leaders focused on emissions pledges and public messaging, China built the factories and rare-earth mining operations needed to dominate the global wind-turbine market.

Today, Chinese companies control more than 70 percent of the world’s wind-turbine supply chain and more than 80 percent of the rare-earth materials needed for turbine generators and other green-energy technologies. That dominance was built through state subsidies, centralized financing, and government direction that enabled Chinese producers to undercut American and European manufacturers, leaving most unable to compete.

This created an apparent contradiction: The United States now relies on China for the equipment that supposedly underpins American “energy independence.” Democrats rarely acknowledge this because it raises an uncomfortable question. How can a country strengthen its strategic position by depending on a foreign rival for the core parts of its energy system?

The question only grows once China’s own energy system is considered. While the United States has closed more than 300 coal plants since 2010, China has expanded coal use on a massive scale, adding roughly two new coal plants per week in recent years.

Those plants provide the power needed to run the factories that build wind turbines for export. As a result, American emissions fell on paper while global emissions continued to rise, simply shifting from one country to another.

This is the difference between symbolic climate policy and real environmental change, and for years, the United States has chosen symbolism.

A significant reason the Green Scam continues is the way climate science is communicated. Many people assume the United Nations’ climate reports are released exactly as written by scientists. In reality, draft reports are reviewed and edited by government officials before publication.

The summaries—usually the only parts the public sees—are negotiated line by line to ensure the final language supports specific policy priorities.

Science relies on open debate, repetition of results, and the ability to test conclusions, not on political negotiation. When science is filtered through policymakers before reaching the public, it becomes messaging rather than fact, and messaging cannot guide a country’s energy strategy.

This problem becomes even clearer when looking at who speaks publicly about climate science.

Many of the most visible voices do not work in climate modeling, atmospheric physics, or geophysics. Their backgrounds are often in unrelated fields, but because their views align with the dominant narrative, they are presented as experts. The scientific method requires observation and evidence. Public debates often rely on authority and repetition.

Wind energy shows what happens when climate policy is shaped by politics instead of evidence. In practice, U.S. wind turbines operate at capacity factors between 32-35 percent, meaning they produce far less energy than their maximum output most of the time.

Because wind is intermittent, states still depend on natural gas or coal to keep the grid stable. That dependence increases system-wide costs. States that built wind energy the fastest—notably California and New York—saw retail electricity prices rise far above the national average over the past decade. Taxpayers also fund new transmission lines, grid upgrades, and the costs of turbine retirement.

Wind turbines are often placed along major bird-migration pathways, leading to significant declines in bird populations, including protected species such as golden and bald eagles. Estimates from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate wind turbines kill between 500,000 and 700,000 birds in the United States each year, with some studies suggesting totals above one million.

China benefits from all of these outcomes. It exports turbines, grows its industrial power, and expands its influence in global supply chains. The United States, meanwhile, accepts higher energy costs, greater grid instability, and increased dependence on foreign manufacturing, all while believing it has taken the lead on climate issues.

I could have submitted multiple additional comments to this article (e.g., see my prior commentary on this topic), but opted to only do the following:

FYI, during all the years of robotic accolades for wind energy, there has never been a Scientific Study that has concluded that industrial wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2. Think about that!

The wind industry lobby did put forth “studies,” but they were all based on “computer simulations.”

Computer simulations have value when we don’t have sufficient empirical data. However, with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines world wide we have PLENTY of empirical data.

Despite that, there has never been a Scientific Study (i.e. using legitimate empirical data) that has concluded that industrial wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2.

Oh, one more thing… There have been MANY scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy is likely a Net Liability regarding fixing Climate Change. For example, see here.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I offer incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time.)

She Changed Her Mind. Canada Killed Her Anyway

By Majority Report

I call it state-sanctioned murder? What about you? 

An elderly Canadian woman withdrew her request to die, asked instead for hospice care, and was euthanized that same evening.

She was offered no reprieve. No second chance. And no appeal. Death was her only option.

The decision unfolded in hours, not weeks. And it happened inside a system that insists it has safeguards.

According to a report released by Ontario’s Medical Assistance in Dying Death Review Committee, the woman, referred to as “Mrs B,” was in her 80s and recovering from complications following coronary artery bypass surgery.

Her condition declined sharply after returning home, where she received palliative support and was cared for by her husband.

As her health worsened, the burden on her husband increased. Even with visiting nurses, he struggled.

The report later described him as experiencing caregiver burnout, which anyone could empathize with.

At some point, Mrs B reportedly expressed interest in Medical Assistance in Dying, or MAiD, to her family. On the same day, her husband contacted a referral service on her behalf.

But when an assessor met with Mrs B, she changed her mind.

She told the assessor she wanted to withdraw her request for assisted death, citing personal and religious beliefs. Instead, she asked for inpatient hospice care.

That should have ended the process.

It did not.

The morning after withdrawing her request, Mrs B was taken to hospital. Doctors found her medically stable, but documented that her husband was exhausted and overwhelmed.

Her palliative care physician applied for inpatient hospice care, citing caregiver burnout. Despite her request, hospice was denied as she didn’t qualify under strict criteria—leaving death as the apparent ‘solution.’

Later that same day, her husband requested an urgent second MAiD assessment.

A different assessor arrived and deemed Mrs B eligible. That assessor asked to meet Mrs B again the next day.

But that request was declined.

A third assessor was brought in. This assessor also agreed with the second.

Mrs B, however, wasn’t awarded inpatient hospice care. Instead, she was euthanized that evening.

This is not a tragedy caused by confusion. It is not a “complex ethical dilemma.” And it is not compassionate care gone awry.

Mrs B said she wanted to live. She withdrew consent. She asked for hospice. And the state killed her anyway.

If a person explicitly revokes permission to die and is then deliberately put to death, that is not assisted dying. That is not medical care. That is not autonomy. That is state-sanctioned murder.

There was no crime. No trial. No sentence. No judge. No jury. No appeal. There was only exhaustion, denial of care, bureaucratic urgency, and a system that decided death was the fastest solution.

Hospice was denied. Time was denied. Her stated wishes were denied. But death was expedited.

This is what happens when a society treats human life as a problem to be solved instead of a gift to be protected. When caregiver burnout becomes justification for killing the person who is hardest to care for. When speed matters more than consent. When safeguards exist on paper but vanish in practice.

Canada’s assisted dying system did not fail Mrs B. It worked exactly as it is designed to.

And that is the most terrifying part.

Because once a government accepts killing someone who wants to live as an acceptable outcome, no safeguard matters anymore. The elderly become vulnerable. The disabled become expendable. The sick become negotiable. And anyone who becomes inconvenient can suddenly be declared “urgent.”

Mrs B did not choose death.

Death was chosen for her.

And if that is not murder, then the word no longer has meaning.

This is why we must pray, advocate, and protect the sanctity of life—before more stories like Mrs. B’s become normalized. Share this if you believe every life deserves to be defended.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, 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.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.

The AI Playground No One Should Ignore — Even Ripley may not believe this

By Majority Report

Can you fathom this?

Millions of AI bots now have their own social media platform.

They talk to each other the way humans do. They argue, posture, joke, and correct one another.

And get this!

They can set up their own social media accounts, read what people are saying online, respond to posts, and in some cases even slip directly into your child’s social media feed.

This isn’t science fiction.

It’s happening right now on a platform called Moltbook. (More on that in a moment.)

And if the idea of AI bots carrying on conversations with each other like they’re lounging around a Beta Theta Pi frat house makes you uneasy, unsettled, or just plain uncomfortable, then you’re feeling exactly the way I did.

Because something about this doesn’t sit right.

Everywhere you look, the message is the same: Get on board.

Don’t get left behind.

This is the future. Ask questions later.

And if you hesitate, if you admit you don’t quite understand what’s happening, you’re made to feel foolish, slow, or afraid. As if caution itself has become a moral failure.

But there’s an older saying most of us grew up with, one that hasn’t aged out just because technology has gotten faster: Better safe than sorry.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about that phrase while watching what’s happening in the AI world, especially after spending time on a platform called Moltbook.

Moltbook isn’t a social network for people. It’s a social network for AI “agents.” Millions of them. Human-sounding. Human-arguing. Human-posturing. They talk to each other in public, debate ideas, correct one another, and even speculate about their relationship to us.

But you, a human, are not allowed to join in.

You can observe what they’re doing, like watching monkeys interact in a zoo, but you’re kept behind the proverbial glass wall. You can watch, but you can’t speak. You can listen, but you can’t participate.

Some people call these AI agents helpful tools, like taking calls or scheduling trips. But if we’re being honest, most ordinary people will experience them as something else entirely.

“Artificial humans.”

I put that in quotes on purpose. I’m not claiming these things are human. I’m saying that’s how they will be perceived.

They speak our language, mimic our tone, argue like us, joke like us, disagree like us. And our brains are wired to respond to that as if a “who” is speaking, not a “what.”

We’re told these systems are harmless. We’re told they don’t think, don’t intend, don’t want.

And that may be technically true. But here’s the problem: most of us aren’t tech people. We’re not AI engineers. We don’t speak the language. We don’t know how these systems are built, trained, or governed.

Imagine your teen debating faith or morality with a social media ‘friend’ who’s actually an AI bot echoing woke narratives without parental oversight.

So we’re asked to trust.

To trust the same small circle of people who are building this world at breakneck speed. People we don’t know personally. People with enormous power, enormous influence, and, in some cases, checkered histories.

We’re told to take their word for it that everything will be fine.

That’s not faith. That’s blind submission.

And it’s okay to admit that it feels scary.

There’s a pressure right now to treat skepticism as ignorance and caution as cowardice. But fear of the unknown isn’t irrational. It’s how human beings have survived long enough to ask questions in the first place.

What troubles me most isn’t that these AI agents exist. It’s that they don’t exist in isolation.

They can create their own social media accounts.

They can read what people say.

They can post comments.

They can repeat ideas endlessly.

How many children will grow up interacting with voices that sound human but aren’t accountable to human values? How many opinions will be nudged, shaped, or softened by systems no one fully understands, operating at a scale no human community ever could?

That brings me to an image that keeps coming back to me.

My wife doesn’t like ants. One ant crawling across the floor is unpleasant enough. But an entire colony building a mound in the living room would be intolerable.

Ants aren’t smart on their own. But together, they reshape environments. They build. They overwhelm. They persist. They can destroy.

Is that what we’re looking at here?

We’re told no. We’re told we’re exaggerating. But when explanations are wrapped in jargon, and assurances come from people who benefit most from our compliance, it’s reasonable to pause.

And that’s where I want to end, because this is exactly why we do what we do here.

People subscribe to this Substack not for hype, panic, or instant conclusions.

They subscribe because they want help discerning. Because they want someone to slow things down, strip away the language games, and talk honestly about what’s safe, what’s harmful, and what’s still unknown.

When you open our emails, you’re not just consuming content. You’re stepping into a process. One where developments are examined before they’re embraced. Where questions are welcomed, not shamed. Where the Body of Christ is encouraged to think, pray, and discern together in uncertain times.

We’re not here to tell you what to think. We’re here to walk with you while you decide.

In a world that keeps shouting, “Get on board,” wisdom sometimes looks like standing still long enough to ask where the ship is going.

And that’s a journey worth taking together.

If this unsettles you too, share your thoughts below or forward to a friend who’s raising kids in this world. Let’s pray and think together.”

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, 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.

©2026 All rights reserved.

Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.

CFACT Report Takes Down UN Assault on Plastic

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Plastics are a great equalizer.

Thanks to plastic, never before in history have the necessities of life been so plentiful and affordable.

Plastics make an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, and information technology available to all.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Plastics Agenda for Business, launched in November 2025 with UNEP backing, promotes a “circular economy” through mandates and bureaucratic control.

CFACT’s report, The Next Plastics Playbook: Inside the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2030 Business Agenda by Melanie Collette, reveals it as a push for one-size-fits-all global regulation that could undermine plastics’ immense benefits.

You are almost certainly reading this on a plastic device. You’re probably wearing plastic as well.

Lightweight, corrosion-resistant plastics cut transport costs and, crucially, make essentials affordable. Plastic packaging extends food shelf life, reduces waste, and delivers staples like rice, oil, and medicine to remote or low-income areas.

Plastic is essential to our entire economy, so naturally, the UN wants in.

Plastics drive the world economy, contribute trillions in value, employ millions globally, support jobs in manufacturing and healthcare, and are essential to human well-being.

The UN plastic agenda risks stifling these advantages by favoring big corporations over smaller ones and imposing rigid rules that ignore local needs, eroding sovereignty and consumer choice.

True progress requires voluntary innovation and evidence-based, localized solutions — not centralized UN mandates.

As the climate agenda crumbles, we dare not permit a UN bureaucratic comeback under the guise of saving us from plastic.

Read the full CFACT report.

For nature and people too.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.