'Armageddon': New evidence reveals ISIS looking to provoke a nuclear war between Pakistan and India

Filling in for Glenn on radio Wednesday, Buck Sexton exposed new plans of ISIS to initiate chaos in South Asia with the goal of drawing the U.S. into the conflict, ultimately leading to an apocalyptic ending. According to a recently translated document shared by Sara Carter of the American Media institute, part of this plan involves provoking a nuclear war between Pakistan and India to start a "chain reaction" across the Middle East.

"If ISIS can take control of Pakistan and, for example, its nuclear arsenal, this is sort of the nightmare scenario," Buck said. "You can see how quickly those two countries spin out of control. While the Obama administration is sitting around trying to tell us that they have things well in hand and it's going to be fine. Our enemies are mobilizing and they are executing on a strategy that they tell us about. They've made very clear to us time and again."

With guest Sara Carter on the phone, Buck delved into some of the ramifications if such a plan were to be carried out. Watch a clip of the interview here:

Below is a rush transcription of this segment, it may contain errors:

BUCK: Islamic State recruitment document seeks to provoke end of world. This is the piece in USA Today. Let me just give you a little excerpt from it.

An apparent Islamic State recruitment document found in Pakistan’s lawless tribal lands reveals that the extremist group has grand ambitions of building a new terrorist army in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and triggering a war in India to provoke an Armageddon-like “end of the world.” The 32-page Urdu-language document obtained by American Media Institute (AMI) and reviewed by USA TODAY details a plot to attack U.S. soldiers as they withdraw from Afghanistan and target American diplomats and Pakistani officials. AMI obtained the document from a Pakistani citizen.

All right. We have the author of this piece, Sara Carter. She's of the American Media Institute. She's an investigative journalist and a friend of mine. Sara, thank you very much for calling in.

SARA: So glad to be with you here with you Buck. Thank you.

BUCK: Sara, this piece is really astonishing. Tell us how this all came together.

SARA: You know, I've been traveling in and out of the region since 2008, and I've been able to build up a lot of sourcing. And, as you know, these sources have got to be protected. They have to be protected. Their security and safety is of the utmost concern. So I can't go into the details of how this document was given to me, but all I can say is that the document is relatively new. It is written in Urdu, which is significant because according to US intelligence as well as European intelligence and other officials who have had the opportunity to review the document, it signals that the Islamic State is making inroads inside South Asia and able to garner high-level and educated officials on their team. So that's why this document is so significant. Also, it lays out their battle plan for the region. And it's something that lawmakers should be paying very close attention to.

BUCK: Yeah, there's been the expansion, relatively recent expansion, Sara, of al-Qaeda into South Asia. That they now have a branch that is al-Qaeda in South Asia. They're trying to accomplish that. There's also the ISIS affiliated expansion in the Afghanistan Pakistan corridor. When you read through this document though, it seems like they've really thought out the next steps here. Explain to us a little bit of the strategy. They'll attack US troops as they're drawing down on Afghanistan. They'll hope to create instability and chaos there. I would assume assert some level of control and then push into Pakistan. And from there, attack into India. Walk us through the sort of blueprint from the document about what the strategy is.

SARA: Well, it appears that their strategy and part of their recruitment is going after those within the Taliban that are now willing to break ranks with the Taliban and join their side. In the document, it says and it warns, that preparation for Ghazi Ihan (sp) are in full swing and soon the Ummah will hear the tidings of victory on that front as well.

What they're talking about here and Mustafa Samdani is the Urdu translator that helped me translate this 32-page very detailed document. They're referring to an attack in prophecy. Now, it's prophesied there will be a great war or an attack-- some kind of movement in South Asia-- before the final battle, which is where this Armageddon-like battle, will occur. So in order for the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to move forward with this great battle against the West, he first has to create or start some type of battle within the South Asia region, particularly in India. That attack in India will instigate, and, as you know, both nations, India and Pakistan, both Indian nations, the instability there will be untold. It really will force the West to choose sides. And it will really spread us thin. We're already spread thin. We still have troops in Afghanistan on the ground training. We have Islamic State on the rise in Syria and Iraq throughout North Africa. So this is highly significant that this battle plan was -- was discovered early on. And I think this is the reason why this leaked. This information leaked to me.

I also have some breaking news for you. I'm waiting right now to find out mullah Omar. (?) that he may have been killed. He's leader of the Afghan Taliban. Right now, a source of mine is awaiting -- I'm awaiting comment from the Taliban. But they are saying, now, this is according to sources I have in the region that mullah Omar was suffering from hypertension and (?) diabetes, and he had suffered severe kidney problems for the last four years. This has not been reported yet. It's not out in the media. As far as whether he's alive or dead, I'm still waiting for the statement from the Taliban spokesmen on that.

So they're -- what they're saying right now is that he has been suffering from hypertension and diabetes for the last four years. And this led to kidney problems. So we still don't know yet whether or not mullah Omar is alive or dead. Obviously, we do know is that he's been very ill over the last four years. I think that's significant. Because it shows there's been a breakdown in the Afghan Taliban. We've seen a breakdown with the TPP. (?) so we have a wide faction looking for leadership and ISIS -- Islamic State is certainly filling that void. This is a cause for concern among US intelligence. Officials. As well as others who are operating in this region.

BUCK: I have to say, based on all the false reports we tend to see or reports that turn out to be premature, inaccurate or however you want to describe it about other senior leaders, Sara, the smart money is always on, no, he's still alive. We'll see if that's the case with mullah Omar. How many times was Osama bin Laden. Dead. Well, czar herey is still alive. We'll have to see on that. (?) the information is health. It's not out in the media. That's also of high interest. Because if -- he's been a figure that's sort of uniting the Taliban for a long time to his banner. When someone like that goes away, there's a high likelihood of factional infighting. As we know there are these other jihadist entities that are trying to pull (?) that would be interesting I think from the perspective of ISIS recruitment at a minimum.

I also want to pull back to the strategy and the strategy outlined in the document. It seems to line up with some of the Hadiths, Sara, that are well-known about the area of Khorasan and that the black flags will come from the east led by mighty men with long hair and beards, their their surnames are taken from their hometowns. Their first name is Acunia. If you see coming from Khorasan, go to them immediately, even if you must crawl over ice, because among them is the Calif, Al-Mahdi. This is all ends of time theology. Interesting to me, this ties into what's already known about jihadist lore and legacy. But also, the idea that they're going after South Asia specifically shows they have an understanding of where the real seams are. Jihadists hate polytheists, which is how they refer to Hindus. Even though it has a massive Muslim population, as a Hindu majority state, it would be something that the world would be completely unprepared for if they were able to start this war in Pakistan. Which has already been something that the jihadist groups have discussed in the past and thought about. It seems like this is going to focus energies of the Islamic State on exactly that, igniting wars between India and Pakistan.

SARA: Absolutely. You hit it right on the nose, Buck. I mean, this is -- this is a strategy that is so incredible because while everybody is focused on Iraq and Syria, while all of our focus has shifted towards that region of the world, they are planning, al-Baghdadi is planning an attack in India. And imagine what this would do to all of the plans. To everything that the US and other European officials and intelligence officials and governments have been trying to do to quell the growth of the Islamic State. It would solidify. It would solidify their presence in South Asia and recruitment would go up extraordinarily, according to the sources that I've spoken to. I mean, this is -- what Bruce Rydell (SP) calls in my story, (?) the holy grail for south -- you know, for south Asia and jihadists in the region. If the Islamic State is able to conduct such an attack, such a massive attack that it would throw South Asia into war, it would really tumble across the entire planet. So, yes, it certainly affects our national security. The document -- and you've brought up some very, very good points here. The Hadith that deal with the end times. The prophecies in the Koran about the end times. This is what al-Baghdadi is centered on. This is his expertise. The document explicitly states that. That was not in my story. But it is in the document. I will be writing about that in the upcoming days. But this is where al-Baghdadi focuses all his attention. And, in fact, in one area of the document, it talks about how he's an expert at inciting violence. He understands that this type of violence, these gruesome, gruesome, brutal atrocities that are being committed all serve a purpose. And they all serve a purpose in the end. Not only to strike fear into our hearts and the hearts of the people that they are ruling over, but it's to lead towards this apocalyptic ending. This shift in world power. It's a little different than Christianity. Because if you think of Christianity, we think about an Armageddon. Christians believe that an Armageddon will come to this end of the world where Jesus will return. While in the mind of Baghdad, according to the document and according to those I spoke to, it's not that same kind of end times. What he wants to see is the caliphate rule the world. And that the West will be submissive. (?)

BUCK: The end of the world as we know it. Not the end of the temporal human world. It's the end of the world where the Islamic State or the caliphate isn't in control of every last bit of territory.

SARA: Absolutely.

BUCK: Sara, also the possibility of the sectarian in the Indian skub continent. (?) India and Pakistan are separated because of sectarianism. Pakistan was founded as a Muslim nationalistic experiment. (?) if they can exploit the fissures in Syria, we'll see what we see in Iraq, but on a much larger scale with a billion people on the subcontinent and nuclear weapons pointed at each other. (?) it's a terrifying strategy. From their perspective, it's very devious. It's something we should pay attention to.

Sara, your piece is great. It's in USA Today. Sara Carter. Islamic State Recruitment Document Seeks to Provoke End of the World. Sara Carter, the American Media Institute, thank you very much for joining.

SARA: Hey, thank you, Buck, for having me on. And if you want to keep up with my stories, @SaraCarterDC, you can follow me on Twitter.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.