The Democratic Socialists of America have been growing in power within the Democratic Party, most notably by capturing a number of Democrat nominations in the 2026 primaries, though it’s important to remember that they already hold plenty of seats in public office. They aren’t a new phenomenon in 2026, it’s just that they are now receiving substantial public notice in 2026. A very different thing.

In fact, the Democratic Socialists of America – essentially the borderless movement of global communism – have been making inroads in the Democratic Party for generations, but only recently have they felt comfortable dropping the mask, and saying, point blank, that they are indeed proud marxists.

So many forms of self-identification that people would never have dared to admit, a generation ago, are happily and proudly broadcast today. It’s shocking.

Some Democrat politicians cheer the DSA’s advance – why not, they agree on virtually every issue; the only difference is packaging anyway.

Other Democrat politicians are horrified at their advance, as they believe the DSA’s open advocacy of communism will cause them to blow an opportune midterm cycle this fall.

And Republicans, horrified that communism has been embraced by so many voters, don’t know what to do, other than to remind people that “Communism Doesn’t Work.”

It has become commonplace – for a century now – for non-communists to try to find common ground with socialism-supporters. “Of course we understand,” the argument goes. “It’s a nice idea. Communism sounds good. It just doesn’t work. It has never worked. It never can work. We understand you like it on its face, but every time it’s been tried, it fails. It doesn’t work, because it can’t work.”

There are two problems with this approach.

First, communism really isn’t a nice idea at all, so there’s no reason to grant them that premise. Communism is a thoroughly autocratic, top-down dictatorship with zero respect for the rights of any individual, by definition. We should focus on educating people about this truth, not dismiss it in an effort to seem nice.

But the second problem may be an even more important one:

We must stop saying it doesn’t work, because it does.

Yes. Of course, communism works. People wouldn’t keep pushing for its implementation if it didn’t work. People wouldn’t keep it going – for decade after decade of utter misery, in Cuba and Venezuela and China and North Korea and more – if it didn’t work for somebody.

The challenge here is that we Westerners have a narrow understanding of what it means for a system to “work.”

Our system – the American system – was designed with a commitment to securing the liberty of individual citizens, to providing a level playing field for the business community so that people could have a chance at success, to providing religious freedom so that Catholics and Lutherans and Jews and Presbyterians and Greek Orthodox could get along as neighbors, to ensuring the rule of law so that all decent, law-abiding people would be reasonably safe from attack by criminals, foreign invaders, or an abusive government.

And we assume that all systems would share these goals, so if a country doesn’t deliver them, we define that country’s system as having “failed.”

But this is wrong. Our goals are not the same as the goals of communist countries, so they don’t judge themselves as having failed.

Communist countries’ publicly stated goals are irrelevant. The reality is that, as dictatorships, their goals are the subjugation of their people, the export of marxist revolution, the complete control of their economy through central planning, and the absolute power of the elitists who run their governments.

Viewed this way – through the lens of reality – it’s a very different picture, isn’t it?

Communism succeeds… for the tiny elite cadre that runs the show.

Soviet Russia enabled Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov, Kruschev, and the rest of them to exert total control over the Russian people. North Korea has enabled the Kim dynasty to exert total control over the North Korean people. Venezuela enabled Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro to exert total control over the Venezuelan people.

China enabled Chairman Mao and his successor Chairman Xi to wipe out tens of millions of their people, by everything from artificial famine to mass killings, from forcing parents to kill their own daughters during the years of the One-Child policy, to forcing apartment building managers to seal up buildings until residents starved to death during the months of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Yes, eventually these leaders die – either of natural causes or of gunshot wounds – but until that day, they have absolute power. As do their aides-de-camp, their lieutenants, their sadistic enforcers, from Berea to Guevara.

Because that’s what communism is really about, at its essence: absolute power.

What words have been championed in our schools, our politics, and our pop culture for generations now? The importance of “empowerment.” Students are told their goal is to “feel empowered” in their jobs, in their communities, in their relationships. They are raised to be “in control” of their situations, their marriages, their destinies.

To the citizen of Western civilization, using these words as positive ones should feel foreign, even shocking. As products of the Scottish Enlightenment, we should value words like freedom and liberty, not power and control. This change in the language, and in the zeitgeist, didn’t happen overnight; it has been building for a century.

This is what we need to teach our children, and our neighbors, and our voters: that the difference, between our system and the many statist foreign systems we broke away from, is what our Founding Fathers expected to be taught to Americans, ever since our nation was born. We should champion liberty, not control. Freedom, not power.

Socialism, communism, marxism, statism – whichever you choose to call it; they are all synonyms – is not “just another option, just another system to give it a chance, and see how it goes.”

Statism is tyranny – the absolute domination of individuals by the entitled, corrupt, ever-more-dictatorial party in power.

The people who support socialism inevitably learn to regret their support, when it’s much too late to undo the damage. As the old saying goes, “you can vote yourself into socialism, but you’ll have to shoot your way out.”

And that’s pretty hard to do when you’ve let them take your guns away.

As long as we allow the naive, uneducated masses to believe that communism is well-intentioned and sweet, their optimism will convince them that even if it went wrong in the past, the good people they trust to implement it here will make sure it goes well this time. We need them to understand that communism itself is indeed evil, that its very goal from the outset is the complete domination of the masses.

And as long as we tell them communism doesn’t work, we are lying to them, as well as to ourselves.

Because it does work.

Just not for them.

Communism works. For the most malicious, the most sadistic, the most vicious of the people, communism is the perfect method of empowerment, the absolute guarantor of control. Communism works for the villains in power.

And we have to be as nice as possible, but also as clear and firm as possible, when we explain to these confused, gullible, utopian children, that communism really does work – better than they can imagine – but only for society’s monsters, not for them.

Copyright 2026 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation and trade compliance trainer, speaker, and consultant. His book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel), his political satires on the Biden-Harris administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes I, II, and III), his first nonfiction book, “Current Events and the Issues of Our Age,” and his brand new collection of stories about the heroes of the American Founding, “The Founding Generation: The Patriots Who Built America,” are all available in either eBook or paperback, only on Amazon. His trade compliance training practice is available either in person or by webinar.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

The old Republican establishment lost control of the party once. It has no intention of letting Trump choose the political order that comes after him.

When I first entered the public arena, the focus of my work was almost entirely on why the right needed to take power seriously. Conservatives had suffered a devastating string of political and cultural losses because they focused on argument and ideology while paying little attention to the way power actually worked. That criticism drew plenty of hostility from defenders of the status quo who did not appreciate some rookie pointing out why decades of conservative leadership had produced so little.

It turns out I was not alone. Popular voices including Matt Walsh and John Doyle now openly support conservatives taking and wielding power effectively. That disagreement has launched another round of public debate over the pursuit of power, but the argument is only a proxy for a larger battle over JD Vance, foreign policy, and the future of MAGA.

Donald Trump represented a serious threat to the established political order. Initially dismissed as a brash reality television host, he quickly demonstrated that he was tapping into something deeper than celebrity and catchy insults. Trump was not a career politician. He did not enter politics with deep ideological commitments, and he did not know or care about the established rules.

He fused law and order, economic protectionism, foreign policy restraint, immigration enforcement, and culture-war issues in a way no Republican candidate had since Pat Buchanan. Trump saw an untapped political market and, like any good businessman, gave the customers what they wanted.

Many prominent establishment figures declared themselves “NeverTrump” and vowed to resist MAGA’s takeover of the conservative movement. That strategy failed. Trump became a political steamroller. Some NeverTrumpers migrated into the Democratic coalition or created opposition “conservative” outlets such as the Bulwark. Others decided to wait.

MAGA had the populist momentum, but the establishment still controlled institutions, personnel, and much of the donor class. The bet was that it could outlast MAGA and co-opt it, just as the Republican establishment had absorbed the Tea Party.

The next opportunity came with Ron DeSantis. Establishment conservatives hoped Trump’s legal troubles would make him vulnerable to a popular governor with a record of victories. DeSantis was supposed to offer Trumpism without Trump: populist energy packaged in a form more compatible with the old ideological agenda.

It did not work. Trump’s primary and general-election victories removed any illusion that a direct assault on him from inside the party could succeed.

If the establishment could not oust Trump, the remaining option was to derail his movement and prevent anyone from carrying MAGA into future elections. Despite Republican control of the House, Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court, congressional Republicans have repeatedly clashed with the administration. The Senate has stalled key personnel and has not passed the SAVE Act. Republican politicians know they must praise Trump rhetorically, but many continue to resist important parts of his agenda.

Add a deeply unpopular war with no obvious end, and the result is an effective containment mechanism: MAGA divided, distracted, and exhausted.

That is why the fight over JD Vance matters so much. When Trump sent the vice president to negotiate a peace deal, critics who had spent years presenting themselves as Trump’s loyal allies suddenly questioned Vance’s ideology, associations, and viability as a successor. Like Trump, Vance is not wedded to neoconservative foreign policy. His role in the negotiations made clear that he is being prepared as a possible heir to the movement.

At the same time, some critics began presenting Marco Rubio as an alternative while attacking any attempt to withdraw from the conflict.

The fights over power, foreign policy, affordability, and the dangers of the New Right are therefore part of the same proxy war for control of the GOP. It is no accident that many establishment figures who favor expansive military commitments abroad also recoil from using political power aggressively at home.

We can always find money for war, but when the cost of living becomes unbearable, suddenly government action is communism. The overlap is not accidental. It reflects the old conservative settlement: Republicans may fight wars abroad and protect big business at home. They may talk endlessly about social issues, but they are not supposed to spend serious political capital addressing them.

That is why it may seem strange to watch figures such as James Lindsay, Joel Berry, and Ben Shapiro portray Matt Walsh as a socialist or JD Vance as a crypto-Nazi. The rhetoric makes more sense when viewed through coalitional politics. Whatever they think personally of Walsh or Vance, they recognize that both threaten an order that has existed for decades.

The conservative movement became comfortable as beautiful losers: controlled opposition rewarded with money, status, and institutional access while the country moved steadily left. Trump disrupted that arrangement. Vance threatens to continue disrupting it.

If conservatism is ever to become a real political movement, it must escape the ideological shackles that keep it from acting. As Russell Kirk argued in “The Conservative Mind,” conservatism should not be about preserving an abstract ideology but a particular people and their way of life.

MAGA represented that shift. It was willing to pursue policies that improved the lives of Americans even when those policies fell outside neoconservative economic or foreign-policy orthodoxy. Achieving those goals requires the right to think seriously about power and how to wield it. Even reducing the size of government requires acquiring and applying state power.

The NeverTrump project now is to poison the well around Vance, prevent him from inheriting the movement, and return the GOP to establishment politics as usual.

That is the argument underneath the latest round of conservative infighting. The personalities change, the immediate controversy changes, and the slogans change, but the stakes remain constant. Someone will define what MAGA becomes after Trump, and the establishment has no intention of surrendering that decision.

The arguments breaking out across the conservative commentariat are not separate fights. They are proxy battles over the same question: Who gets to rule the Republican Party after Trump?

The Blaze ^ | Auron MacIntyre

You’ve probably heard that Donald Trump assembled a “multiracial coalition” in 2024, inaugurating a historic “realignment” of American politics that will enable the GOP to continue winning elections in our increasingly diverse nation.

It’s a deeply misguided reading of that election. It’s also a dangerous delusion for Republicans.

Racial diversity has made Democratic strongholds out of once-winnable cities like New York and states like California. It threatens to do the same in Texas and Georgia, both of which are now majority nonwhite. Just look at the latest polling for this year’s midterms: White Texans and Georgians strongly prefer the Republican candidate for Senate, yet in each state, the Democrat is projected to win.

The Texas race is admittedly close, but in Georgia, once a deep-red state, the incumbent Democratic senator could win by double digits.

Many conservatives misperceive the unfolding political catastrophe because of the widespread impression that America remains split right down the middle between the two parties. They scoff at the well-worn idea that Democrats are on the verge of securing a permanent majority via demographic transformation.

To be sure, several important factors have kept conservatives in the game up to now:

Countermajoritarian institutions—gerrymandering in the House, malapportionment in the Senate, the electoral college—have overwhelmingly benefited Republicans. The Democratic Party’s brand is in the toilet, and the GOP has managed to woo working-class whites in recent decades, offsetting increases in the nonwhite population over the same period.

Hispanics occasionally flirt with the GOP, as do Asians, to a lesser extent. Among age cohorts, only the under-25 crowd is majority nonwhite, and most of them can’t yet vote. Nor can the millions of illegals who streamed across the southern border under Joe Biden.

But you can’t get away from two basic facts: 1) Most nonwhite voters favor the Democrats, and 2) the country will be mostly nonwhite in a couple decades. A few years after that, America’s electorate will be mostly nonwhite. And since whites are politically more divided than nonwhites—with white liberals voting Democratic—doomsday will come even sooner for the Republicans.

In my view, it’s already here. Just consider presidential elections from the past few decades to appreciate the seismic changes underfoot and the political earthquakes that both the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election could bring.

The current political alignment began around the time of the Civil Rights movement, when the Republican Party adopted the “southern strategy” to gain support among white voters.

The GOP has been the white party ever since, and Republican presidential candidates, at first, dominated in this racial dispensation. Richard Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972, as did Ronald Reagan in 1984. The electoral maps for those elections are stark, with both Nixon and Reagan taking 49 out of 50 states.

By contrast, Trump’s winning maps from 2016 and 2024 show a mix of reds and blues. Like Nixon and Reagan, Trump won white voters but lost nonwhite voters, yet his margin in the electoral college was much slimmer, and in neither election did he crack 50 percent of the popular vote, despite running against deeply flawed candidates in races featuring no significant third-party spoilers.

The most important underlying variable accounting for these wildly different outcomes: The electorate had become less white.

But didn’t Trump make inroads with minority voters, proving that the GOP can thrive in a majority nonwhite America? Not really. Around 84 percent of Trump’s voters were white in 2024, only modestly more diverse than Mitt Romney’s 88 percent in 2012, despite the pool of eligible voters becoming less white in between. Yet Romney was panned for appealing only to white voters, whereas Trump was praised for “broadening the Republican coalition.”

People see what they want to see, I guess. Republicans were exuberant, and no one seemed receptive to my warning that Trump’s multiracial coalition was a mirage and the GOP was in big trouble. Republican donors, advisors, journalists, and think-tankers all told me different versions of the same thing: Trump won Hispanic men, we’ll get those minority voters—many are “natural Republicans,” after all!

Well, anything is possible. But no Republican presidential candidate since Herbert Hoover has won a majority of any nonwhite racial group. And remember those mitigating factors that I mentioned earlier, the factors that have kept Republicans in the game up to now? Many are eroding.

Nonwhite Americans too young to vote are only getting older. Trump has bled support among Hispanics, Asians, and even working-class whites. And while the millions of illegal aliens in our country can’t vote, their children, if born on American soil, will be able to.

In the upcoming midterms, gerrymandering may prevent a massive blue-shift in the House of Representatives, and this year’s Senate map happens to be a fairly tough one for Democrats.

But if you want to see the political future toward which America is hurtling, don’t turn to the wishcasting fantasies of myopic Republican strategists. Just look at New York City, which was 90 percent white in 1950 and is just 30 percent white today.

As the Big Apple has turned brown, its politics have turned blue. The last Republican mayor was Michael Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat who, in 2001, switched parties to open a less obstructed path to Gracie Mansion. (In the “Republican” primary that year, Bloomberg defeated a former Democratic congressman.)

Following the Bloomberg era, the Republican candidates in Gotham’s mayoral elections have mostly served as something even more pitiful than Democrats in red ties: comic relief.

In the 21st century, the actual choice facing New Yorkers is between the progressive and establishment wings of the Democratic Party. So last year, after Zohran Mamdani—a democratic socialist born in Uganda—secured the Democratic primary, he easily won the general election, though white voters preferred the independent candidate Andrew Cuomo (another lifelong Democrat).

Across New York City, Mamdani enjoys high approval ratings in the nonwhite parts of the city and poor ratings in white areas.

That’s what’s in store for the country, and soon. Recent polling shows that 58 percent of Democrats see socialism in a positive light, 26 points higher than the number for capitalism, so a progressive lefty certainly could win the Dems’ presidential primary in 2028.

And unless I’m missing something about the racial character of American politics, the Republican candidate will discover that compelling arguments and slick campaign ads no longer counteract demographic headwinds. The permanent Democratic majority has arrived.

Andrew Bay, American Conservative

Darline Graham vs. Ralph Norman? In the GOP primary to replace Lindsey Graham for U.S. Senate in South Carolina?

It seems like a no-brainer.

Lindsey Graham’s sister may be a nice enough lady, but you can’t run for U S. Senate based on an endorsement from President Trump and literally nothing else. The country is in a free fall, not because of President Trump but because of all the damage (past and present) coming from a corporate, media and educational elite overwhelmingly dominated by leftist psychopaths.

Ralph Norman appears to understand this based on his answers, and his pro-liberty voting record is one of the best in Congress. If Darline wins the runoff, the Communist Democrats (who endorse her over Norman) are licking their chops at seating a child predator/genital mutilating, woke, gun-banning totalitarian pediatrician (Annie Andrews) in South Carolina’s Senate seat.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” (Ayn Rand)

It seems so obvious. It really seemed obvious back in the 1960s, when Rand wrote it. Part of her brilliance and foresight was her understanding that it needed to be said even back then — and much more now.

Everything that AOC, Mamdani and the rest of the now fully radicalized Democratic Party claim as a “right” actually belongs to another — not to them. The under-40 snowflakes who will never grow up, the biggest group cheering on socialism, are morally untenable, although they fancy themselves as morally superior.

All socialism is theft.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Globalism has already failed” and the crisis of predominantly Muslim migration is leading to a point of “no return”, Bishop Marian Eleganti has declared.  

The former auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Chur is one of a handful of prelates who publicly denounces Islam and the concept of modern migration into the West, and has regularly linked the demographic crisis in the West to the crisis of immigration simultaneously affecting Europe.  

Interviewed recently by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Eleganti warned that the Catholic Church “should not take an idealistic approach on this issue”, outlining that this meant the Church should avoid preaching “a moralism detached from reality, which ignores the concretely existing social problems linked to unlimited immigration and which can only be solved with political common sense.”  

“The ecclesial project of universal brotherhood does not combine truth and love,” he said.  

Eleganti has issued such a commentary before, as he previously criticized the style of fraternity born out of Pope Francis’ 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti as being “unrealistic”. “What kind of brotherhood is there, for example, between Christianity and Islam, which persecutes or suppresses the Christian faith in most countries where it prevails?,” he wrote last year.

For Eleganti, focussing on such a programme has harmed the Church, which in his assessment now pays “too much attention to the world.”  

“Under the pontificate of Pope Francis this alliance with the political world was taken to the extreme,” he told La Bussola. The bishop opined that the entire process of globalism has “already failed today with respect to people’s needs” since it only serves the “financial elite”, namely those who “determine the policy”.

Due to the current style of pro-immigration rhetoric which has emerged from the Vatican over the past number of years, Eleganti argued that the Church – or the Vatican – “does not want to see things as they are”.

Charity and love for neighbours must “manifest itself in a reasonable way”, he noted. “A father who wants to help orphaned children and already has two of his own must consider whether he can afford to adopt another child.”

Eleganti’s reference to the Ordo Amoris, or the priority of charity, will not be lost on Vatican analysts. It was in response to U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s comments on the same topic that Pope Francis issued a letter to the U.S. episcopate critiquing Vance and President Trump’s immigration policy. Francis decried the equating of the “illegal status of some migrants with criminality” in comments that garnered strong criticism from the Trump administration.

But in Eleganti’s assessment, the West is too readily accepting high levels of Muslim immigration due to a low birth rate. Western nations are compensating their lack of children “with immigrants to survive as a society”, he said.

“The danger is very serious,” Eleganti warned. “Hatred and arrogance, the thirst for power and violence, in other words: submission, are clearly demonic phenomena.”

He further argued that unless swift action is taken to counter the rising spread of Islam in the West then “the point of no return will be reached, at least in some regions of the Western world. Riots like those occurring in England are omens of this.”

Islam is not alone in posing a threat to Western civilisation, in Eleganti’s assessment. It is also joined in that regard by neo-Enlightenment modernism. “What they have in common is an anti-Christian spearhead,” he said.

Urging prayer also as a recourse against this double-pronged attack, Eleganti related that the crisis affecting the West is “something supernatural: on the one hand, the Incarnation of God and the revelation of the truth; on the other, the constant and ever-new Luciferian inventions that seduce men.”

He also rejected the repeated drafting of new texts as a proposed solution to the various problems affecting Western society. The Church, Eleganti said, does “not need ever-new documents on this” since “the Gospel contains all the answers. At the end of the day, things are simple. An excess of words and complexity is not an indication of a divine solution. Our solution is Jesus.”

Eleganti was among the few bishops who publicly condemned the Vatican’s accommodating of Muslims in the Vatican Library last year, when news spread about a small room with a carpet which had been made available to Muslim scholars at their request.

Interviewed by this correspondent last year, Eleganti expressed his doubts about fruitful dialogue between Catholicism and Islam. “I think even in its foundation Islam is expressed as an anti-Christian religion,” he said. “It says the contrary. It says that Jesus is not the son of God and that He is just a prophet, a human being, and it denies the Holy Trinity, of course.”

Though one of a small number to make such strident comments, Eleganti is not alone. The Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad also issued similar words to the West about Islam, shortly after the ISIS attacks on the Christian population in his native Nineveh Plains. “You need to rethink our reality in the Middle East because you are welcoming an ever-increasing number of Muslims into your countries. You, too, are at risk,” warned then Archeparch Nona.

He continued: “You must make strong and courageous decisions, even if it means contradicting your own principles. You think that all people are equal, but that’s not true. Islam does not say that all people are equal. Your values are not their values. If you don’t understand this in time, you will become victims of the enemy you have welcomed into your own homes.”

Michael Haynes, The Catholic Herald

Bond yields climbed Thursday, erasing most of the pullback they saw the previous day after the Treasury Department announced an intervention aimed at easing pressure on longer-dated government debt.

The yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond — the primary focus of the accelerated buyback — was up more than 4 basis points at 5.236%.

Yields on 10-year U.S. Treasurys — the main benchmark for mortgages, auto loans and credit card debt — moved more than 4 basis points higher to 4.696%.

The 10- and 30-year yield levels were right around the level they held before the 8:30 a.m. announcement Wednesday that Treasury would be stepping up its bond buyback program.

The yield on the 2-year Treasury note , which more closely follows short-term Federal Reserve rate decisions, was last seen up more than 2 basis points at 4.20%.

One basis point equals 0.01%, or 1/100th of 1%, and yields and prices move inversely to one another.

The moves underscored the difficulty of market interventions, particularly at a time when U.S. debt faces a slew of factors that have been pressuring yields higher.

In a move announced Wednesday morning, the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Scott Bessent, announced it would at least double the size of its government debt buybacks, starting Sept. 9 and running through Nov. 4.

Yields tumbled following the announcement, with the 30-year down about 10 basis points after previously hitting its highest in about 19 years, predating the global financial crisis in 2008.

However, the trade quickly unwound, with yields higher Thursday as the market digested the move, as well as the longer-term structural problems facing the fixed income market.

The interventions “belie the underlying structural challenges and do nothing to address them,” Maia Crook, senior research analyst at JPMorgan Chase, said in a client note. “While [Wednesday’s] action forced some decline in longer-dated yields, the more lasting impact is the potential for higher risk premia reflecting a Treasury Department that is intervening in the market and moving away from its ‘regular and predictable’ tenet.”

The announcement came the same day that Treasury updated the national debt total, which pushed past the $40 trillion mark. At the same time, the market has faced stiff competition from record corporate debt issuance tied to the artificial intelligence buildout, all of which has contributed to rising term premiums, or the extra yield investors demand to hold U.S. government paper.

Traders were also digesting the latest Federal Open Market Committee minutes from July, released Wednesday. Officials at the meeting indicated that higher interest rates likely would be needed if there isn’t more progress on inflation. Economic data released since the meeting have shown modest monthly price increases, though inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target.

On Thursday, the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index posted its highest reading since April 2021.

CNBC

I am a Portland mother of three. My oldest son, now 26, attended Lewis Elementary and had such a positive experience there that my husband and I built our home only blocks from Lewis so we could send our two younger children there as well. Lewis wasn’t just our neighborhood school. It was the school our family already knew and trusted.

I’ve lived my entire life in Portland, Oregon. I am also a Christian, and I believe parents have the right and the responsibility to know what their children are being taught. I never imagined that asking would get me banned from my children’s school.

It began when my 11-year-old brought home an “identity flower” assignment requiring him to identify his gender and share his answer with his class. I had received no advance notice and no opportunity to excuse him from an exercise that conflicted with my beliefs.

So, I did what parents do when they don’t understand something happening in their child’s classroom: I asked.

When I requested a meeting with the principal, I arrived to find three additional staff members waiting for me, including both of my children’s teachers and a school counselor. My questions were hardly revolutionary: What did “gender” mean in this assignment? What had the children been taught? Why hadn’t parents been informed?

At one point, my son’s teacher raised her voice and demanded, “Why do you need to know?”

Because he is my child.

It remains astonishing to me that this required an explanation.

The materials I eventually obtained only raised more questions. They instructed children to consider what gender “feels right” to them that day and suggested that the answer might later change.

People can disagree about whether that belongs in an elementary-school classroom. What should not be controversial is a parent’s right to know it is happening.

I joined the PTA in part so I could raise these concerns there, but when I asked to speak, I was prohibited from doing so. With that avenue closed, I wrote an open letter to other parents and distributed it peacefully from a public sidewalk outside the school.

Then came an argument with another parent during pickup. His wife and I had been speaking respectfully when he interrupted us, repeatedly shouting, “White people are disgusting!” within earshot of children. I called his comments racist, used language I regret, and walked away. I did not threaten him. I did not assault him. I was not arrested.

The next morning, police officers came to my home.

In front of my neighbors, they handed me an order barring me from my children’s school for one full calendar year for allegedly harmful and threatening behavior.

The man who raised his voice at me, to my knowledge, received no trespass order.

The principal then emailed the school community, accusing me of “harassment, intimidation, and threatening behavior” and referring to my views as “hate speech.” Parents were told to report me if they saw me on campus.

I appealed. Portland Public Schools (PPS) gave me a 30-minute Zoom “hearing” conducted by a panel consisting of two janitors and a basketball coach. One panelist emptied garbage cans while I spoke. No witnesses were called, and no meaningful evidence was presented.

They upheld the order, and because they did, I missed my son’s fifth-grade graduation.

Children get one fifth-grade graduation, and parents get one chance to be there for it. Other children looked at their mothers when they crossed that stage. My son looked for me and saw an empty chair.

PPS wasn’t finished.

When I later objected publicly to how I had been treated, the district threatened something far more consequential: it threatened to bar me permanently from every PPS property.

My daughter still has years left at this elementary school, and my son is beginning middle school. The message was difficult to misunderstand. Continue speaking, and you will be excluded from their schools forever.

So, I stopped.

That is the part of this story that should concern people regardless of what they think about gender, politics, or me.

Government doesn’t have to duct tape someone’s mouth shut to silence her. It merely has to make the price of speaking high enough. For me, that price was the possibility of losing access to my children’s schools forever. And for a while, it worked.

But parents do not need the government’s permission to ask what public employees are teaching their children. We do not surrender our right to criticize public officials when we enroll our children in public schools. Disagreement does not become “harassment” simply because officials find the speaker difficult or her opinions unwelcome.

That is why I am suing PPS.

I’m not asking a court to agree with my opinions. I’m asking the court to affirm that government officials cannot punish parents for questioning them, and that access to our children’s education cannot depend upon saying only what those officials want to hear.

I cannot get my son’s graduation back. That day is gone. But I can refuse to let fear silence me.

Allison Roberts, Christian Post

Quote of the day by George Augustus Moore, ‘A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it’ offers life advice on inner peace, family, relationship, friendship, companionship, happiness, human connection.