More unspeakable horrors from ISIS

On radio Tuesday, Glenn told listeners about a nightmarish video recently released by ISIS purportedly showing a horrific killing where the victims were burned alive while hanging from a swing set.

"Meanwhile, our churches, for the most part, remain silent," Glenn said. "Evil makes itself so overwhelming that you just think you can't do anything about it."

In reality, there is so much we can and should do, Glenn said.

"We can save 2,000 people or more by Christmas," Glenn said. "And that's only if 400 churches get involved. 400 churches that say, 'hey, I will take a family.' Now, it's $25,000 to get those families here."

Donations to the Nazerene Fund at Mercury One will be used to save these lives.

Warning: Parts of the following audio clip might be disturbing to some listeners.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: ISIS has burned to death four Iraqi men by chaining them upside down on a swing set.

They took the chains off the swing set and took the men, put them in an orange jumpsuit, changed their arms and legs together behind, and then took the chain of the swing set and hung them there so their face and their knees were pointed towards the ground.

Then they soaked the men's clothing and their hair in gasoline. And then they took the gasoline and made a long line, a fuse, if you will, out to where their cameras were. One of the men took a torch and lit the fuse.

Before they were chained up, they had to introduce themselves to the camera, giving their names and brief description in their role in fighting against ISIS.

Underneath them, when they had been changed up, the line of fuel had been poured and slight patches of straw it been added to prepare the flames. And the video shows the slow motion footage as the fire begins to burn up the line of fuel, heading rapidly towards the men. Final few seconds of footage are too graphic to even describe. But the men are seen burning to death.

Prior to death, the prisoners are made to watch several videos showing the mutilation of bodies of the dead ISIS fighters by members of the Iraqi army and the Iranian militias.

Meanwhile, the rape rooms continue. In warehouses all across Syria, they have taken thousands of children, children as young as one to nine years old. Those are the ones that get the most money at the auction block. The one, two, three, 5-year-olds. And they can be used for rape. They can be used for slave labor. But a lot of them they keep in the warehouses. It's where they keep the Yazidi women. The Yazidi children. The Christian children. The Christians. The Muslims who are just not Muslim enough are generally killed. The Christians are used for sport.

The New York Times reports today, the Middle East, that they have photos now. There was a day of conflicting reports about the extent of what ISIS was doing. They finally got down to the bottom of it. It looks like the main building of the Temple of Baal has been destroyed now. They were all upset. They took satellite images and compared the old, ancient 2000-year-old temple. And they wanted to make sure that it was -- what the extent of damage was done to that. So that's on the New York Times' front page today because they care about the artifacts.

Meanwhile, our churches, for the most part, remain silent. America remains silent, repeating the exact mistakes we made with the Jews in the 1930s, turning our head, denying to ourselves that it's really that bad, denying that we could do anything about it. See, as I pointed out in my speech on Saturday at Restoring Unity, that's how evil works. Evil makes itself so overwhelming that you just think you can't do anything about it.

And so while we care deeply, we think we can't do anything about it, so we do nothing. And that's how evil works. Until people like Johnnie Moore get on an airplane and just leave their job. One day they just leave their job and they go and buy a ticket to Iraq and they just go and see what's going on. How can I help? To have them come back and tell the stories to us. And we think we can't do anything about it.

Do you not go to church every Sunday? If you go to church every Sunday, is your pastor talking about it? And if your pastor's not talking about it, why isn't your pastor talking about it? Why isn't your pastor and your church raising the funds right now to be able to evacuate some of these families?

We can save 2,000 people or more by Christmas. 2,000 people. Just so, you know, that's 800 more people than Schindler and his list saved. We can save 2,000 souls. And that's only if 400 churches get involved. 400 churches that is, hey, I will take a family. Now, it's $25,000 to get those families here. We'll break all those families down for you by the end of the week so you know exactly where the money is going, how it's being used. But did you see what Iceland is doing? Because Iceland is only a country of 300,000 people. 300,000 people in the entire country.

But one woman got on Facebook. She's a prominent author in Iceland. And she couldn't take it. And so she went on Facebook and she launched a campaign after the government said we'll take 60 refugees. We'll take 60. She thought, that's not enough.

So she went on Facebook and she said, who else will take some? Who will volunteer as a family to take a family in? I'm asking you, which churches -- will your church volunteer to take a family in? In the space of 24 hours, 10,000 Icelanders offered up their homes and urged their government to do more.

People wrote in, I'm a single mother with a 6-year-old son, I can take a child in need. I'm a teacher, I'll teach a child to speak, read, write. Adjust to our society. Another one wrote, I have clothes, a bed, toys, everything children would need. I'll pay for the airline ticket even to get them here.

Out of a country of 300,000 people, 10,000 people in 24 hours said, I'll offer up my home. I'll offer up my money. I'm asking you to do the same thing today. I'm going to post in a few minutes just a quick note that just says, what churches will take a family? What people will take one person? Will you offer up your home? See, when I started telling you that we are going to repeat the 1930s, everybody thought I was nuts. When I said, we're going to have to be a people that will hide or take people. Are you -- are you willing to be one of the righteous among the nations?

I thought this would happen with the Jews. I didn't think it would happen with the Christians. I thought it would happen with the Jews. But it's happening with the Christians. So now, what are we going to do? I ask you again what I asked you six, seven, eight, ten years ago. When the world goes mad and the world is crucifying people, when they're building houses of horror and concentrate camps -- I mean, what's the difference between the concentrate camp at Auschwitz and the one barrack in Auschwitz that held female prisoners that were used as prostitutes, used as pleasure receptacles, forced to have sex -- what's the difference between that and the 8-year-old girl that just escaped ISIS, who has testified that she was raped up to ten times a day every single day? What is her life like? What's the difference?

There is none. We said never again. Well, never again is now. I have a goal of raising $10 million by Christmas. That's a huge goal. I don't know if we can even make that. That's the largest amount of money we've ever asked to raise, by far. By far.

Maybe we can only make 5 million. I don't know. We've already raised 3 million. And not from big donors. Big checks. The average check is $100. It's the average listener. But it's the average listener that wants their name in the book of life. They want their name. This is the time that giants are born. And you're either going to sit on the sidelines. And not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act. You're going to sit on the sidelines, and your name is going to be written in the book of death. Or you'll find a way -- if you have no money, can you house somebody? Can your neighborhood house somebody? Can your church house a family? Can you help spread the word? Can you help just as a prayer warrior? What is it that you can do? Because everybody has something.

You don't have to be the one out front leading. You don't have to be the one with all the money. The greatest donation we've ever received at any time was right before Restoring Honor in Washington, DC. Somebody sent in -- a man sent in 8 cents. He said that at the end of the month, that's all he had. But he took and he cashed those eight pennies. And he said, I just want to do my part. And I'm sorry. That's all I can do. That happened the week before Restoring Honor, where we were behind and we were in debt. We didn't know how we were -- and the government was telling us we needed extra security. Another $500,000 in extra security. We didn't know how we were going to be able to raise it. I thought we were going to have to call off Restoring Honor. We were a week away.

It was a Saturday that I got that note. On Monday, I had to go on the air and say, we might have to cancel this because we don't have enough money and the government is asking us more. Instead, I went on, and I put those 5 cents or 8 cents down on the table. Jeffy, will you go get them? They're right over there in that corner. They're next to the horns.

STU: Usually not a good idea to trust Jeffy with loose money.

GLENN: I know. Off in the corner, Jeffy. In the last row. It's a little picture with 8 cents in it. See it? Down towards the bottom. It may have been moved.

STU: Jeffy made it disappear. Shocking.

GLENN: They're eight pennies. I still have them. Because they changed everything. Because of the faith of one person that just said, I'm going to do my part. I don't know what your part is. But I'd like to suggest that we go on Facebook today and we see how many people are willing to say, I'm willing to take a family. My church will take a family.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.