The Democratic Party is a death cult, and they are killing off their own future

August 21, 2024

OLIVIER CHASSIGNOLE / Contributor | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

The Washington Post covered the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last month with a story full of contempt for the rich. It vilified the corporate bigwigs flocking to town to rub shoulders with Donald Trump.

Twenty years ago, Wall Street and big business may have been in the pocket of the Republicans, but that’s no longer the case. All the large corporations belong to the World Economic Forum and the global public-private partnership that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been pushing.

During the Republican gathering, the Post described oil and gas executives, crypto packers, and powerful Republican politicians engaging in hushed conversations in luxury suites about prospective tax breaks. The piece claimed Donald Trump would only serve America’s wealthiest. It painted a picture of greedy, evil businessmen making deals in dimly lit rooms. After all, as the Post likes to remind us, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

You will own nothing and be happy.

Even if the Post’s portrayal of the Republican convention’s attendees was entirely accurate, I would still prefer rich CEOs over the groups invading the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this week. Unsurprisingly, the Post and others have failed to scrutinize them with the same intensity.

According to the Capitol Research Center, 279 extremist groups were on the streets of Chicago as a part of a coalition to march on the convention Monday. Of that number, 147 have expressed support for or have ties to terrorist groups, such as Hamas, or terrorist attacks, including deadly attacks on Israel in October. The Hamas-allied and Iran-backed Marxist-Leninist group called the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine is also on the ground, openly planning to replicate the violent 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Is anyone on the left going to cover these people?

Abortion, anti-family, anti-life

It's very hard to make Planned Parenthood look good, but these groups are giving them a run for their money. One is calling for Jewish blood, and the other is calling for baby blood. This is a blood death cult.

Planned Parenthood was parked outside the convention with vans, offering free vasectomies and abortions for those who are lucky enough to sign up before all the spots were filled.

Conservative media reacted to the news with shock and disgust. Libs of TikTok called Planned Parenthood’s efforts “demonic.” It is. The pro-life group Students for Life says this proves the far left is “the party of death.” That is true. But free abortions really shouldn’t be all that shocking. After all, pro-abortion groups like Aid Access, run by a team of European doctors, have been mailing abortion pills to women in all 50 states for as low as $100 for years.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate, signed a bill into law last year that removed the requirement for doctors to use all reasonable measures to preserve the life and health of a baby who survives an abortion attempt. He signed a bill enabling doctors to let babies die in the hospital room after they’ve been born.

Moreover, the nominee for the president, Kamala Harris, made what I think is a slip of the tongue when she said: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduced population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.”

Maybe it was a mistake for the prompter, but maybe she accidentally said the quiet part out loud. I’m sure the prompter said, “Reduce pollution.” But I'm also sure reducing the population is a part of the deal. Bill Gates and other WEF pundits have been promoting population control for decades, a remnant of eugenics that is being ushered into the 21st-century Democratic platform.

This is a death cult.

Return of the DINKs

The left has revealed it’s no longer just the party of killing babies. It's also the party of eliminating the possibility of having them at all. JD Vance received immense backlash from the left, recently calling out the “childless cat ladies” running the Democratic Party. He’s right. Democratic voters are more likely to not have children by choice. They aren’t childless due to medical reasons or the inability to conceive, but by choice, more than their Republican counterparts.

There was a University of Chicago poll that was conducted in 2022 that found 38% of Democrats had no children compared to 26% of those on the right. Like Planned Parenthood’s free abortions, it shouldn’t be surprising. This has been an ongoing movement pushed by the left for decades.

William A. Burly argued in a New York Times op-ed in 1990 that having “fewer children mean[s] a better life and a healthier environment.” He went on to say, “This truth should be taught to our kids," which, unfortunately, he was in the perfect position to do as the principal of an elementary school in New Milford, Connecticut, teaching yesterday’s Millennials, who are now reproducing today at staggeringly low levels. It’s no wonder since they were taught that having kids is a death sentence for personal freedom.

Thirty-four years after Burly’s op-ed appeared, Timothy Carney in the Washington Examiner wrote that New Milford has suffered such a decline in birthrate that it closed its community birthing center. Student population at the high school dropped so much that the JV and varsity football teams had to combine.

This is happening all throughout the country.

Why fight the fight when you can just eliminate the children?

In 2023, the term “DINK” resurfaced on TikTok after a long hibernation from the late 1980s. It stands for “dual income, no kids.” DINK videos of child-free couples bragging about the ample time and money they have to travel and eat at nice restaurants surpassed 33 million views last year. Social media’s glamorization of refusing to “reproduce” may push thousands of potential parents, who are grappling with the decision of whether to go “child-free,” over the edge. How different would fertility rates look today if TikTok videos romanticized parenthood instead?

Surely, a political party starving for power and control would realize that it needs a future populace to carry the torch, but it's aborting its own future voters. That party also stands directly alongside globalists who want “freedom thinkers” to have as little power as possible.

But having kids gives you just that.

Having kids makes you a free thinker because it gives you something to live for beyond yourself. It requires you to reflect on the future and the kind of country you want for your kids. It forces you to reflect on what citizenship means and how to teach that to the next generation. It gives you a reason to fight. It gives you the kind of autonomous power that globalist governments do not want citizens to have in any shape or form. Whether it’s financial freedom in owning a home or the intellectual freedom in knowing that my kid is mine, you can’t force me to teach them the dark principles and beliefs of the far left.

Ultimately, the far left knows that the much bigger and tougher battle is indoctrinating the sacred home where parents have complete control over the lessons and the principles that they choose to shape their kids.

So why fight the fight when you can just eliminate the children? You will own nothing and be happy. You will raise no one and be happy — like the DINK couple. You’ll have extra money to spend on gifts and lavish trips around the world, the freedom to stay up late, the freedom to live for “yourself.”

Will Trump hatred win?

But like so much of what the far left believes, the opposite is true.

I don’t know what will convince people of the lies that they’re buying into. The first night of the Democratic National Convention was filled with stunning, provable lies. Democrats are counting on their voters to be stupid, and they’ve laid the groundwork to deceive the rest.

They need you to hate Donald Trump more than you worry about your personal finances. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than their open borders. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than fentanyl and drugs on our streets and our children being killed by illegal aliens. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than exploiting your taxpayer dollars to house illegal immigrants in hotel rooms while veterans are on the streets. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than you notice the people who are strung out on drugs in our cities and suburbs. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than communism or the possibility of nuclear war. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than their cult of death.

When we get into the voting booth, do Americans actually hate Donald Trump more than what’s in their own best interest? Will you buy what they’re selling?

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep