Killing babies to fight inflation? Memo exposes sinister origins of Democrat ideology

Photo by Daniel Dan on Unsplash

The polls are not looking too hot for Democrats lately. Even AOC got heckled recently — in her own district. Dr. Oz is gaining on Fetterman. Kari Lake is pulling away from Katie Hobbs. Herschel Walker is neck and neck with Warnock.

Even the New York Times conceded on October 17 that the GOP is steadily making serious gains.

And maybe one of the funniest things in all of politics and the mainstream media is that almost none of them can figure out why. They’re seriously dumbfounded.

But I think a lot of us that don’t live among the coastal elites can actually empathize with their political confusion. We are likewise confused, but not on why the Left is so unpopular right now. We’re confused over what they actually stand for. We’ve got no clue what they are fighting to achieve. Well, outside pure raw power. But the means by which they’re trying to achieve it makes no sense.

For one, there's the buzzword “EQUALITY.” We already have equal opportunity. Whether it be race, gender, sexual orientation — those fights have already been fought and won.

I saw a TikTok the other day of a liberal teacher bragging that she passes out pride flags every day to all of her students. She said she was doing it so that “every day is a Pride Parade.” Umm … why? What is this a stand against? What rights do those in the LGBTQ community not have?

Why is there a left-wing cult for climate change?

Why is there another left-wing cult that really wants to make sure people can kill babies with no restrictions?

It almost sounds as if today’s Democrat figureheads don’t even know the why for all the things they’re so outraged over. Almost as if they were handed some talking points from the 1960s and are trying to pretend we still live in the civil rights era. Now, I want you to think about that, and then listen to this interview of Stacey Abrams recently on MSNBC:

Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but never in all my years did I ever think I’d hear a major American political party declare the answer to inflation would be to kill your kids. Maybe that’s just me.

Stacey Abrams is clearly an idiot, but I think I kind of get where the stupidity originates from. I don’t think she or any of the other up-and-coming Democrats today truly believes any of the crap they’re spewing. They’re using it all to try to gain power. They’re sowing hatred and rage, but they have no clue where all of this came from. They’re just skimming the talking points that have been handed down to them over the past 50 years or so. But do they actually understand any of it? I don’t think so. And how could they? As I pointed out before, these are fights that have already been fought. These are fights that other people, in many cases, have already won.

And maybe the greatest example of this is Stacey’s wacked-out statement on abortion and inflation. If you Google the words “abortion” and “inflation” together in the same search, you might possibly stumble upon a Planned Parenthood memo from 1969.

The memo was authored by a Planned Parenthood vice president regarding “Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States.”

You see, long before the cult of climate change, progressives were all on board the cult of population control. American eugenicists were respected by progressives and tyrants all over the world, and Planned Parenthood was ground zero for the entire movement.

This memo not only reads like a script from a horror movie, but it reveals what leftists truly stand for — whether they remember or know about the origins or not. I’m going to highlight quotes directly from the memo. This first part is directly from the first page:

This memorandum is responsive to your letter of January 24, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy, defined as "legislative measures, administrative programs, and other governmental actions that are designed to alter population trends ...”

So right off the bat it makes you wonder. Was the abortion movement truly concerned with women’s rights? Or was it really all about a post-apocalyptic strategy to control population?

It appears they believed that American families were to blame … but not all families were always the focus of proponents of population control. Take a look at exactly which families they wanted to control the sizes of. They looked to:

justify an explicit U.S. policy now of encouraging a specific universal limit on family size (as distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups).

Minorities and the poor. Supposedly the people the Left claims to care about, right? Kind of makes you wonder about LBJ’s true motivations behind his War on Poverty, doesn’t it? It makes you wonder why the REAL effects of the ensuing massive welfare state ended up making people poorer and breaking up families. Interesting coincidence.

The memo goes on to mention that a mass wave of contraceptive handouts was the preferred method. But I find this part interesting:

effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all who want it and abortion is available on demand as a backup measure.

Abortion on demand wasn’t even the main plan. It was the BACKUP. But I thought it was all about women’s rights?

Now, here’s where we get to Stacey Abrams’ weird comment about inflation and abortion. This memo actually references inflation:

as a concomitant of full employment and thus, to accept relatively high (or not least preventable) unemployment levels as necessary. Yet, more women enter the labor market under conditions of full employment and the relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems well established. An examination is needed of, in effect, the question: How much inflation could or should we risk to achieve lower fertility?

Aaaand a lot to unpack there ...

For one, they wanted women in the workforce — not for equal opportunity, but because employed women tended not to have as many babies. But they thought all those women getting jobs might spike inflation. So it was something they figured they’d have to measure. The party of virtue!

The memo also came with an attachment that listed other measures proposed by population control experts. It was never said that any of these were actual plans by Planned Parenthood. But check out some of these “proposed measures”:

  • “Restructure family: postpone or avoid marriage, and alter the image of ideal family size.”
  • “Compulsory education of children.”
  • “Encourage increased homosexuality.”
  • “Educate for family limitation.”
  • “Fertility control agents in the water supply.”
  • “Encourage women to work.”

These are just a few, and it gets nuttier and nuttier. Again, there’s nothing to suggest Planned Parenthood had any plans to do any of this, but it shows the lengths population control academics were willing to go to. Fertility control agents in the water supply?! Are you kidding?

How many current Democratic flag-bearing issues can you spot just in this memo?

“Compulsory education of children”: How many of us have wondered why they’re pushing so hard on our kids lately? Why are they ramming sexually explicit Comprehensive Sexuality Education into our schools?

“Encourage increased homosexuality”: What is the LGBTQ lobby still fighting over? Didn’t it already win? Why are people hyper-sexualizing kids and exposing them to drag queens in schools and libraries?

“Educate for family limitation”: Who has wondered why they are shouting to “destroy the nuclear family”?

“Encourage women to work”: Isn’t workplace gender discrimination illegal? So what’s that fight really all about?

And regarding the “education” they keep referencing for both kids and families, check out this quote from the full memo:

In this area it seems particularly important to distinguish between education and indoctrination. Whatever may be the merits and effectiveness of a truly educational effort, an indoctrination campaign may well have only negligible effects on fertility values, but may provide unintended support in building a public opinion which seeks legalized compulsory fertility control for selected groups (particularly welfare recipients).

The admission here is insane. Indoctrination — they admit — has its bonuses ... especially for imposing "fertility control" on poor people.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

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.