Sara Carter uncovers plight of Christians in the Middle East ignored by Obama

Programming Alert: Watch For the Record tonight for a special report with Sara Carter at 8pm ET on TheBlaze TV.

Having recently returned from the Middle East assessing the front lines of ISIS, investigative journalist Sara Carter joined Glenn's radio program Thursday to report on the situation from the perspective of persecuted Christians and other minorities in the region.

"It started last year, for me. When the Sinjar situation escalated, it was when the Islamic State was already inside Iraq and then made an advance into the Sinjar region, which is mainly home to many Yazidi people that have lived there for thousands of years," Carter said.

She went on.

"Everything that they had been promised by the administration to help the Yazidi people and the Christians that were in the region being slaughtered by the Islamic State failed to come through. They were left on their own," she said.

Listen to the full interview or read the transcript below. Here's a preview of the Special Report:

8pm ET on TheBlaze: ‘For the Record' Special Report: Journey t...

One year after the rescue mission on Mt. Sinjar, For The Record contributor Sara Carter traveled to Kurdistan for an update. What she discovered was a tragic truth that the American people were never told.

Posted by

TheBlaze on Thursday, October 29, 2015

 

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

GLENN: Sara Carter is just an unbelievable reporter. She's the one who has broken so many stories. She's worked for TheBlaze. She's doing some work for For the Record. And I have to say on the outset, thanks to American Media Institute for their assistance in helping us produce an episode of For the Record.

I'm going to have her tell you what this episode is tonight. But she went on a -- well, I'll let her tell you. Sara, welcome to the program.

SARA: It's great to be on, Glenn. Thank you so much.

GLENN: You bet. Tell me why you went on this trip.

SARA: It started last year, for me. When the Sinjar situation escalated, it was when the Islamic State was already inside Iraq and then made an advance into the Sinjar reason, which is mainly home to many Yazidi people that have lived there for thousands of years. Rumors started spreading that they were mass executing, that then was validated. We were on the sidelines. Nobody was in the region. Nobody was stopping them at that point in time. And I had received an email from somebody that was there in August. And they were devastated. They were assessing the region. They were an American. And they said it was an absolute slaughter, that everything that they had been promised by the administration to help the Yazidi people and the Christians that were in the region being slaughtered by the Islamic State failed to come through. They were left on their own. And it wasn't until the situation escalated to such a point where, by that time, mass graves were discovered. People were up on the mountain. Sinjar mountain is very stark. You know, I was just there. And it wasn't at all as I expected.

There's no life. It's a desert area. Jagged rocks. Very hot, desolate. And there's no water. So these people were escaping for their lives. Those that made it out of Sinjar village and the other surrounding villages near the mountain, went up the mountain to escape from the Islamic State and were just devastated. They were left on the mountain. They were abandoned. Promises were made to them. And then promises were broken.

And I don't know if you remember the president finally -- President Obama on August 7th said that he was going to be conducting some airdrops. And by that time, the Islamic State had really stepped to the doorstep of Erbil, which is the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region, Kurdistan, which is part of Iraq.

And at that point, the president realized there was nothing they could do. They would have to launch some strikes against the Islamic State or they would infiltrate the capital of Kurdistan. So at the very last second, there were some airstrikes.

And then after August 7th, some airdrops came in on the mountain. But there was no Noncombatant Evacuation Operations. This is what they were promised. They're called NEOs, Glenn. NEOs are when you try to rescue people out of a situation that are noncombatant, and you're taking them out of a war zone. And that was what was promised to them.

GLENN: Okay. We were told --

SARA: And they never showed up. They never showed up. In fact, on the 14th, the president said, "Hey, they've already made their way out. We sent a team there to assess it. We did our job. The Yazidi people are fine. And they're going to be okay." And I think everybody just bought the story. But the problem was, they were so many elderly. So many children. So many women. And people with disabilities that weren't able to make it over the mountain. And they were just abandoned. Some of them didn't get food because, of course, the young and the strong get the food first, right? Once it drops. People are starving. They grab what they can. So I think that there was this enormous sense of failure among the people that were there. That they wanted to help the people. And even the Peshmerga fighters who were up on the mountain, they were tough. I mean, they stood up against the Islamic State. But they really had no backup support. So the whole place just fell apart.

So that was the reason why I went. I made a promise that I would take this trip, even if I had to fund it myself. That I would get to Iraq and I would see with my own eyes what actually happened, and I was grateful that I was able to get there with TheBlaze and For the Record and with American Media Institute because I think it changed my life.

GLENN: In what way, Sara? In what way?

SARA: And I know it did. You know, it's easy to turn a blind eye to the atrocities when they're so far away from you, when you don't have to put yourself in the shoes of -- of those that are suffering.

But when you go there and when you realize -- I'm a mother, and when I stood -- I stood in this mass grave, Glenn, and there was just some tattered clothing, some shoes left, somebody's finger -- a bone of a finger -- a human finger left, after they had already taken the bodies out when they discovered it early in February. In this desolate desert.

And I saw this little girl's blouse. And no more than maybe two years old, just sitting there. Knowing that she and a relative, maybe a mother, maybe an aunt, were standing there, knowing that their death was on the way, that this is it. This was the last day they were going to live. Imagining that if I was that mother holding my child in my hands and knowing there was nothing I could do for her and wondering where the rest of the world was, when is someone going to come save us and that feeling of utter hopelessness, that feeling of utter hopelessness and doom just swept over my body. And I thought to myself, "You know, we're better than this. We need to tell these stories. We need to be the voice of those who have no voice." And I was so grateful that despite all of the horror that I felt I could witness -- and just -- I mean, telling you, I could see the Islamic State from Mount Sinjar. I could see their vehicles. I could see their flags down below in Shingal Village, Sinjar Village. Knowing that they were right there at the door. And that they were ready to make a move any time. That the only reason they were being held off was from a few airstrikes right now in the Peshmerga forces. But knowing how many people died at their hands and that nobody was there to save them, I felt like this was -- this was a story that needed to be told. That we can't forget. We cannot forget what happened to these wonderful people.

GLENN: Sara Carter is on For the Record tonight. A special report. Journey to the Front Lines. You don't want to miss it. 8:00 p.m. tonight. Only on TheBlaze. Go to TheBlaze.com/FortheRecord.

Sara, as always, good to talk to you. Thank you so much.

And, again, thank you to American Media Institute for partnering with us on this important story. That is tonight, only on TheBlaze.

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.