Kamala’s radical dance with anti-Israel activists

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

The Democrats simply cannot afford to lose the anti-Israel vote, even if it means turning a blind eye to the vast web of pro-Hamas organizations that showed up in Chicago.

Late last month, anti-Israel protest groups raged through Washington, D.C., to disrupt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s official visit and speech to Congress. They ripped down American flags, burned them, and replaced them with Palestinian flags. They dumped maggots in the hotel where Netanyahu was staying. Among several instances of vandalizing federal property, they defaced the Columbus Memorial Fountain outside Union Station, spray-painting in big red letters, “Hamas is coming.”

Yes, Hamas is indeed coming for Democrats, but not in the sadistic way that Hamas is coming for the Jewish people. They’re coming for Democrats through countless intermediary support groups because they know Democrats are most likely to give them what they want. Despite their best attempts to paint themselves as freedom-loving moderates during the Democratic National Convention, Democrats are and have always been the haven for extremists in American politics.

It’s amazing how quickly Democrats get behind law and order when it suits their agenda. They tolerate chaos and destruction in the streets except when it hurts their public image.

This is the party that has catered to elite universities across the nation over the past year that have encouraged and facilitated anti-Semitic student protests, encampments, and even the attempted takeover of administration buildings.

Last week, a congressional report from the House Education and Workforce Committee revealed that out of the 22 anti-Israeli students at Columbia University who were arrested for breaking into and occupying a campus building, 18 of them remain in good standing with the school and will return to campus for the fall semester. Three are on interim suspensions, and one is on probation. Columbia initially said those 22 students would be expelled.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are also pro-Iran, a regime whose intentions toward Israel couldn’t be clearer. The Biden-Harris administration recently waived sanctions on Iran’s state-controlled media outlet, which airs a constant stream of anti-Jewish content.

There were major anti-Israel protests at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, but Democrats weren’t about to let them steal the show or do anything to disrupt Kamala’s coronation. It’s amazing how quickly Democrats can get behind law and order when it suits their agenda. They tolerate chaos and destruction in the streets except when it hurts their public image.

They built a giant fence-wall around their arena to keep the protesters at bay. What were they afraid of? The Chicago area has one of the largest Palestinian communities in America, and thousands of activists poured in from all over the country. What could possibly go wrong?

Shamelessly pro-Palestinian

The destruction in Washington, D.C., last month was a preview. Many business owners in downtown Chicago boarded up their windows.

On day one of the DNC, the Hamas flag was proudly flown, just in case there is any doubt about whose side these protesters are on. One of the people waving the Hamas flag asked a Fox News reporter, “What’s wrong with October 7?” He proceeded to defend the terror attacks that mutilated, tortured, and killed 1,200 Israelis, including the elderly, women, children, and babies. Protesters then bashed their way through the perimeter fence outside the convention center.

On day two, protesters charged the police line outside Israel’s Chicago consulate. Seventy-two people were arrested. On the same day that these protests began, Israel recovered the bodies of six dead Jewish hostages found in a hidden passage during a raid on part of the Hamas tunnel system in Gaza. There are still 71 hostages being held by Hamas, including eight Americans.

The day before the convention began, Hamas took credit for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. On day three of the DNC, Israel and Hezbollah traded cross-border missile strikes. In addition, the ongoing threat of an attack by Iran on Israel is always imminent, along with Iran’s developing nuke program.

Earlier this month, a Palestinian man on the U.S. terror watch list was apprehended at the border in New Mexico. If Harris and Walz have any say in the matter, he probably has a house, free health care, and a driver’s license by now. Meanwhile, Biden defended the pro-Hamas protesters, saying that they “have a point.” What exactly is their point? That the October 7 terror attacks were justified given their context?

America’s pro-Hamas crowd will align themselves with any group to support their terrorism. They will link arms with groups who claim to be for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion, even though none of those rights exist in Gaza. Leftists are so blinded by their own devotion to those issues that they’re willing to look the other way when it comes to support for anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Secret meetings

The Treasury Department under the Biden-Harris administration has stonewalled the congressional probe into nonprofit groups that are financially supporting pro-Hamas “illegal and anti-Semitic activities” across the United States over the past year. In May, the House requested suspicious activity reports on organizations including Students for Justice in Palestine and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Treasury Department has not handed over a single document. Last Wednesday, the House sent a letter to Secretary Janet Yellen threatening a subpoena.

The week before the convention, Kamala Harris appointed Nasrina Bargzie to be head of Muslim outreach for her campaign. Bargzie has a history of less-than-favorable views toward Israel, including defending Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the radical groups under congressional investigation.

Two weeks before the DNC, Harris also met with Layla Elabed, who is a co-founder of the Uncommitted National Movement. Her sister is Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). The Uncommitted National Movement is working to convince voters not to support Harris unless she backs anti-Israel polices. After their brief meeting, Elabed claimed that Harris is open to an embargo on arms for Israel, but Harris’ campaign immediately stepped in to bury that story.

Harris’ campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, flew to Detroit ahead of the Chicago convention to meet privately with Abbas Alawieh, Elabed’s co-founder and partner. According to a Washington Post report, the Harris campaign provided “extra passes for staff and friends” of Uncommitted to attend the DNC and even gave them space to hold a news conference.

And during her trip to Michigan two weeks before the convention began, Harris also met in secret with Abdullah Hammoud, the 34-year-old mayor of Dearborn, to appeal to the Detroit suburb’s largest population of Arab-Americans in the United States.

Perhaps some kind of deal was struck in these meetings. Harris would keep her comments balanced about Israelis and Palestinians, and they would keep their people from burning down Chicago during her coronation. We don’t know if a deal like that was struck, but after emphasizing her support for Israel’s right to defend itself, Harris railed against Israel’s attacks in Gaza.

Democrats historically have built coalitions of seemingly conflicting groups with overlapping interests, threading them together with some form of oppression identity. But why are Democrats so eager to tolerate anti-Israel groups that justify terrorism? Do you think Kamala Harris is really anti-Semitic when her husband is proudly Jewish? It boils down to the one thing that brings strange bedfellows together and breeds compromise: votes.

Anti-Israel voters have one major point of leverage right now in the Democratic Party: They’re most heavily concentrated in Michigan, which is a crucial battleground state. Democrats simply cannot afford to lose the anti-Israel vote, even if it means turning a blind eye to the vast web of pro-Hamas organizations that showed up in Chicago.

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.