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

October 24, 2022

Photo by Daniel Dan on Unsplash

CEO/Founder

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:

Stacey Abrams says unrestricted abortion-on-demand can help solve inflation: "Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs." pic.twitter.com/5CDEAKMDwN
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 19, 2022

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.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep