Democratic Socialists of America: The Secret Stooges

A Democratic Socialists of America jacket worn at a rally in Los Angeles, California

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in the Gatestone Institute. Democratic Socialists of America: The Secret Stooges)

The country is debating whether the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the new face of the Democrat Party. There are two impediments, however, to accurately discussing what the DSA is all about.

The first is that Americans are learning about DSA through the lens of the dominant media — what Rush Limbaugh often called “the drive-by media.” Largely missing is a balanced media source despite the almost universal use of the term “mainstream media” to describe the current collection of highly partisan and slanted journalists from whom most Americans get their news. While “mainstream” implies balanced and informative, most of the dominant media of today are neither.

The second impediment is an assumption that advocates of the DSA are simply against a “capitalist” system they associate with greed, and instead favor of what they consider a benign, compassionate “socialist” economy where stuff is largely free. Who doesn’t like free stuff? Capitalism, however, is not the villain. Without capital (funding), there would be no economy, free or state-run. The alternative is to go back to a barter system: I’ll paint your apartment, you give me wood for heating my house.

The issue, therefore, is not between capitalism and socialism. It is between free enterprise and economic liberty on the one hand and a state-run, often totalitarian, market on the other.

Capitalism is not synonymous with free enterprise or economic liberty. The 1776 economic manifesto The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith never used the word. It was Karl Marx who used “capitalism” as a highly pejorative description of the economies of the affluent West. North Korea and Cuba also use capital. Both are, in a way, state capitalisms: the state has all the money; the citizens are the oppressed serfs. The state provides for them, to an extent, but is careful to do so as stingily as possible.

The socialist or communist state’s first concern will not be delivering services; it will be cutting costs. As the money that comes in becomes scarcer — who is making money, the state? The first casualty invariably ends up being quality. Yes, there is free healthcare — if you can wait months for an operation, and if you qualify for it under the state’s cost-cutting rationing. Are you too old or too sick, or too medically compromised in some other way, and is someone younger and healthier more worthy of receiving the care than you?

Yes, you receive free housing, but who will guarantee that there will be sufficient heat in the winter, clean running water, that the garbage will be collected, that there will be no vermin, or that the elevator will work.

Under communism, land belongs only to the state. The price is immaterial. Ask the “kulaks,” peasant farmers in Ukraine whose land and grain were stolen by Stalin’s Soviet Union during the Holodomor in 1932-33, with the result that five million people in Ukraine starved to death.

The DSA candidates do not describe themselves as communists. What does that mean, however, when many of the DSA’s official policies are the essence of communism?:

  • “[C]ollectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation…” (source)
  • “[N]ationalize and socialize (through worker and community ownership and control) institutions of monetary policy, insurance, real estate, and finance…” (source)
  • “Social housing must first be a redistribution of land from landowners to the landless… Social housing must expropriate property from capitalists and deliver it to the working class…” (source)

Members of the DSA, while not precisely following what communist enemies of the USA want to see happen in America, are nevertheless stooges — dupes — of our communist enemies — what during the Cold War were known as “useful idiots.” Walter Duranty of the New York Times wrote from the Soviet Union in the 1930s that “no actual starvation or deaths from starvation” in Ukraine and “there is no famine,” and he treated the Moscow Trials as justified and credible. Prior to this, shamefully, Duranty had won the 1932 Pulitzer Prize, still unrevoked, for his reporting of fabrications from the Soviet Union.

Unlike the DSA, communist leaders from Lenin to Mao to Castro did not aspire to abolish the police, the military or the border patrol. If anything, these totalitarian rulers expanded the police, the prisons, and the military. They were more than happy to put millions in prison or the gulags while widening the powers of the police and security forces, whether the KGB, MININT or MMS. Certainly, they all markedly enlarged their military and security forces. How else could communist nations have killed some 120 million of their own people, just to secure and sustain power?

What is being overlooked at the moment is that the current communist rulers from Cuba to China would love the DSA to abolish the police and border patrol in America, empty the prisons, open the borders, and shut down oil and gas production. Those moves would thoroughly cripple the United States and significantly weaken its ability to defend itself — both internally and externally. No self-respecting communist government would ever adopt such crazy policies.

Supporters of the DSA appear to think that mob violence — such as was used in the summer of 2020 and currently characterizes the assault on immigration law enforcement — will enable them to seize control of the House of Representatives, then the Senate, then the presidency itself. If the Supreme Court is a barrier to the totalitarian plans of the DSA — whose plans would be so easy to implement if all that were needed was a simple majority vote in the House — the logical plan is to abolish the checks and balances of in the US constitution to fundamentally transform the US.

The DSA appears impatient with the world. Their utopia cannot wait. A thoughtful discussion of America’s future or reasonable analysis of the DSA’s objectives will not happen. Any such debate would leave these candidates in the ditch. They argue for abolishing the police on Monday, they deny they said it on Tuesday. No discussion of ramifications. The drive-by media remain complicit in the rise of the DSA by ignoring or covering for them.

What can we expect? Commentator Ryan Mauro notes that New York City’s DSA Mayor Zohran Mamdani and “chaos” funder George Soros both admire Slavoj Zizek, whose In Defence of Lost Causes calls for the return of the French Revolution’s guillotine and what he calls “emancipatory terror.” The goal, it seems, is the destruction of the West, to be replaced with Stalinist communism. Apart from their projected multiple trillions of dollars in new government spending that they cannot pay for, the DSA foreign policy agenda is also scary. The DSA seems to be pushing a global intifada, an embrace of Hamas terrorism, a wholesale rejection of Israel, and on top of all that, “defunding” the US Department of Defense.

The goals of the former Soviet Union are still being pursued — not by the KGB or the Red Army but by DSA hucksters who sadly are nothing but suckers promising a false utopia to be built on the ruins of America.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank.

35% Approval and a Midterm Disaster is NOT What America Voted For

President Ronald Reagan, whose approval rating fell to 35 percent after the 1982 midterm losses

A tough and realistic conversation for the short-sighted

Happy Monday, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been on the road for 9 days and am a bit worn down. I’m not my chipper self today, and I’m going to open your week with a bit of shockwave for needed perspective, accountability, and hopefully, direction.

Simply put, when Americans voted for a political revolution and won, they didn’t vote for a 35% approval rating and they sure as hell didn’t come out in droves just so the Republican Party could get shellacked in the very next midterms. They were told about America’s decline, viewed that fateful quadrennial presidential election as a last ditch effort to reverse course peacefully in America, and responded with a popular vote win that featured Republican presidential victories in:

  • Arizona
  • Michigan
  • Nevada
  • Pennsylvania
  • Wisconsin

…and blowouts in Texas, Florida, and Ohio. This unrelenting base was ready to crawl over shattered glass and gas station bathrooms to vote for a man who became the oldest president of all time upon inauguration. That old man could have enjoyed his fame in retirement, but chose to step into a toxic arena and wear every label, accusation, and slander imaginable and even survived an assassin’s bullet.

To imagine that this man would be underwater and through uncontrollable world events struggle to deliver the full economic revival he promised his working-class base just two years later, and on the verge of losing midterms, is utterly unimaginable, unpalatable, and unacceptable to the people who believed in him.

Thirty-five percent approval.

In the celebratory aftermath of his victory and the rip-roaring fast start of the administration, no one would pencil in a 12% loss to Democrats in the House popular vote, and a loss of 26 seats, along with key gubernatorial races in must-win states. Seeing the base fray at the seams was not what I’d have envisioned watching such a political revolution unfold just two years earlier.

My assumption is that you had no idea I was talking about President Ronald Reagan’s administration and the beating the Republicans received in 1982.

Yes, indeed – at the start of 1983, right after the Democrats cleaned House, President Reagan held a 35% approval rating.

This was back before we had 900 different polls using different methodologies to produce heavily propagandized results, so a 35% approval rating hurts a lot more than the fabricated ones encircling President Trump’s administration these days. Reagan was widely thought to be a one-term president in the making at the same point in his administration as we find ourselves into Trump 2.0’s administration.

Likewise, vultures are circling today – forecasting doom in 2028 despite Republicans performing extremely well in voter registration bearing down on a midterm that, according to 92 years of history, favors Democrats, and the rapid emergence of the DSA faction of the Democrat Party.

“2028 GE: Polling Average by @RacetotheWH — Harris: 47.5% (+4.9), Vance: 42.6% — Buttigieg: 42.2% (+1.2), Vance: 41.0% — Vance: 42.0% (+1.3), Newsom: 40.7% — Vance: 42.8% (+5.2), AOC: 37.6%. Kamala Harris has led JD Vance in every single poll in 2025/26.” — InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022), August 9, 2026

Three-time Trump voters perpetuate online conversations 24/7 spreading negative energy (“blackpilling”) and convincing those on the fence that the fight isn’t worth fighting and exists only to be lost. Now let me tell you how we got here, how we get out, and what mindset shift must occur if there is to be a freer future obtained through peaceful means.

TALKING SENSE IN AN AGE OF POLITICAL ILLITERACY

I. Information War

Humanity is in a tough spot. We have access to more information than any people to have ever existed before. In past ages, iconic libraries would burn, and with them, hundreds of years of human learning and experience would go up in flames. Now, any idiot with a phone can look up the molecular composition of dust floating in an asteroid belt millions of miles from earth.

Unfortunately, despite all this information, the human brain reverts to a hypnotized state when confronted with fake news, polling, and agendas. No matter how many elections in a row we get clearly biased and rigged polling, the next round of pro-Democrat polling is right around the corner. Here’s the polling from the 2020 Senate race in Maine, which Susan Collins won by almost 9 points:

Paid influencers then post negative stories, because they get 40% more engagement than factual or positive ones, and the algorithms – like wind in sails – do the rest of the work.

“Trump lied”

“Israel owns the GOP”

“You shouldn’t vote this election to show them how you feel”

We think we are smart, and indeed, the internet did aid in the Great Awakening and allow a man like Donald Trump to be elected president. But people no longer read, write, and express original thoughts. Try handing your teenagers a book for a car ride activity, and you’ll get my point. We think we are winning the battlefield of ideas, but in truth we are insular, outsource our thinking, and are led around like sheep to slaughter.

That brings us to Point II:

II. Only One Trump

Remember when I explained why Trump was so fond of Lindsey Graham, a guy who was weak on immigration and hawkish on foreign policy?

A lot of that has to do with getting the job done on budgets. Then there’s also the reality of the political system, which selects incumbents most of the time based on the following cycle, which repeats:

  • Money buys advertising, staff, and voters
  • Incumbency brings money and name recognition
  • Money and name recognition bring reelection

When there’s a legitimately vulnerable incumbent, he or she often survives because eight different grassroots candidates throw hats in the ring and audition like “Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the most conservative of them all?”

As such, you have 53 Republican senators, minus Cornyn, Tillis, Murkowski, and sometimes Curtis, Cassidy, and Collins. We get conservative voters not turning out in what they view to be pointless primaries, allowing for places like Knox County, Tennessee, to have liberal idiots in charge of education. Simply put, we don’t have other Trumps, and because there are no (or few) other Trumps out there to do the people’s work, the Uniparty maintains a degree of control and can then focus on deflecting executive actions.

I suppose Trump could go bulldozer mode, but then the ideological purists would condemn his actions as those of a dictator. The United States government was designed to change slowly, and in this sense, it isn’t working fast enough to save the country politically. This brings me to my final point:

III. Short-Sighted Strategies Fail

But what if the Democrats win the midterms?

What if they do? I mean, 92 years of history show me that the president’s party loses seats in the U.S. House 20 out of 23 times since 1934. This year, believe it or not, affords one of the highest chances of president-party success since the dawn of the New Deal era, and it’s entirely owed to redistricting. Republicans aren’t going to win the Congressional popular vote, but they may be able to pull an inside straight depending on how they do in these 24 seats:

I am in it to win it, and I want Republicans to retain and expand majorities; however, I fail in my capacity as an advisor if I push anything less than truth, or lie to my friends about seats they, or even a resurrected George Washington, can’t win. If Democrats win the House, which I would give them 60/40 odds to do today, then there will be pain. There will be committees formed and inquiries ordered, and crappy people assigned important positions of influence and power. They will drag their political enemies in front of cameras and excoriate them, and unlike Republicans, deal out legitimate consequences.

And in doing so, they will remind America why they can’t be trusted with power, why voter registration constantly moves against them, and exactly why they should forget the early struggles of the Trump 47 administration that aren’t really the fault of his policies. Economic ships take a long time to turn around, global enemies left unaddressed for 5 decades don’t simply leave power in a span of months, and the enemy wants to win, too.

Like we Christians say on Easter: Satan thought he had it won on Friday, but Sunday is coming.

The 2030 census is coming. The emergence of the DSA is already coming. The truth will win out, but only if the people who desire to see it in real, living color in our lives get off their dead asses, log off the internet, and get busy building the relationships that matter and pushing the good people they know to take over school boards, counties, and beyond. There are no more Trumps. You must be the new Trumps, or provide aid to those who stand for what is right.

The focus on the short-term is killing us. Building a long-term juggernaut will bring dividends for generations and bring new life to a Republican Party that can truly be used as a force for good, as it once was.

The Happy End to the Story

As we all know, Saint Reagan made a remarkable recovery.

Today, he’s remembered as one of our greatest presidents, even though he wasn’t perfect, and left behind some policy-related damages that still hurt us today, such as those related to illegal immigration and amnesty in a 1986 scam he fell for. The Republicans went on to win 89 of a possible 100 states between the 1984 and 1988 presidential elections, achieving the only three-election streak by the same party since the end of World War II – a feat still unmatched today.

We find ourselves today on the precipice of knowing what the 2026 midterms hold in store. Republicans will bounce back from a negative outcome, perhaps even with a better and more engaged response than they do from a miraculous hold of both majorities. As for your peace of mind and sense of direction – that relies on your willingness to invest in long-term outcomes rather than temporary and fleeting dopamine hits in the form of social media whining and immediate demand for positive election results without the tough work getting done beforehand.

History doesn’t always repeat, but it very often rhymes!

Seth Keshel, MBA is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy and a retired Army Captain. He publishes Captain K’s Corner on Substack.

Americans are blaming the wrong part of their electric bill

High-voltage electric transmission towers and power lines across an open landscape

(This article was written by Joe Barton and appeared in the Washington Times. Americans are blaming the wrong part of their electric bill)

In Texas, the company that sends your electricity bill is not the same one that generates or delivers your power. These are separate companies. Generators produce the power, regulated utilities deliver it and retail providers sell it to you.

This setup is important because when prices go up, people often blame the wrong part of the system. Many also hold the unsupported belief that electric rates are rising quickly due to data center demand.

It’s true that there is rising demand for power, but prices are rising in specific regions where lack of supply is a problem.

While demand has increased, supply has remained flat in regions such as the Northeast, which nearly 58 million people call home, and power producers there prefer it that way.

A recent analysis by Charles River Associates underscores the point. Across most of the country, electricity prices have been relatively stable and the narrative of runaway electricity prices is largely driven by a smaller group of states — concentrated in California, the Northeast and parts of the mid-Atlantic.

This PJM Interconnection region, which includes states such as Pennsylvania and Maryland, is a great example to follow. Unlike Texas, the main issue in PJM is not confusion about roles. Instead, it is a deeper problem: Utilities in many PJM states are largely not allowed to build or own power plants, even if that could lower costs and improve reliability.

Utilities must buy power through PJM’s marginal price auctions. These auctions set prices based on the most expensive unit required to meet demand. This means all power is priced at the highest cost, even if cheaper options are available. Consumers end up paying that price set by individual power plant companies.

It’s important to note that utilities do not profit from these increases. Purchased power costs are passed onto customers without any markup. The companies that send your monthly bills are not the ones making money from higher wholesale prices.

Instead, the system is producing exactly what it was designed to produce: higher prices when supply is tight. That’s the wrong way to do things if you ask me.

This is where comparisons to Texas are instructive. The ERCOT market, which serves most of Texas, is also a competitive system. But it operates differently.

Texas regulators have made policy decisions that prioritize ensuring sufficient supply, even if that means higher upfront costs or stronger price signals to incentivize investment. The result is a system that, while not perfect, has largely served consumers well by maintaining a closer balance between supply and demand.

In PJM, the situation is different. Supply growth has not kept up with rising demand, even though the region has grown steadily for years. Market rules have stopped utilities from building new power plants in places such as Pennsylvania, while older plants have closed.

Independent power producers have not replaced them, even though they have made record profits. These power plant owners know that the current structure rewards scarcity instead of new supply.

Utility-owned generation can often provide power more cheaply than purchasing it through volatile wholesale markets. In fact, allowing utilities to build generation can act as a hedge against independent power plant owners backed with private capital – not taxpayer oversight – that keep power supply low and prices high.

It introduces another source of supply, increases competition and reduces dependence on price spikes to trigger investment.

The goal is not to get rid of independent power producers, which are important to the energy system. Instead, we should aim for a level playing field where both utilities and independent generators can compete to build the power plants needed to meet demand.

This will result in greater electricity supply and help reduce prices in the PJM region, unlike the situation we’re experiencing today.

Electricity demand is growing, which shows economic strength, not a problem. The real challenge is making sure supply keeps up. When it does not, prices increase and consumers end up paying more.

In Congress, I supported all efforts to let companies that know what they are doing build more to meet the demand my constituents needed to build their own businesses and American dream.

If state policymakers want to stabilize prices, they should stop limiting who can build power and focus on bringing more supply online. And if American families are the ones footing the bill, then the source of their power should be the cheapest option in a truly competitive market.

Joe Barton is a Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank. He is a former Republican member of Congress representing Texas who served as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2004 to 2007.

Making Policy: Marxist Rainbows and Mob Shock Troops

The Karl Marx Monument in Chemnitz, Germany

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in the Gatestone Institute. Making Policy: Marxist Rainbows and Mob Shock Troops)

Ever since the time of Karl Marx, communists and their socialist brethren assumed that the envy of financial success would attract the proletariat to carry out a workers’ revolution in the rich countries of the West. It turned out, however, that even the poor would like to be rich.

In America, instead of locking up the wealthy or stealing their money, the poor tried to figure out how to get rich themselves.

Given America’s economic liberty, nearly every day, a typical American worker likely hears of some ordinary guy inventing some gizmo or figuring out how to sell millions of the same thing — and meanwhile getting wealthy.

So, how to lead a revolution if not with the workers rebelling against the rich, or in the language of today, the “oligarchs” and “billionaires”?

In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson created the “Rainbow Coalition.” The poor were of different races, so Jackson wanted all races to be included in this pursuit of prosperity. Years prior, the Chinese Communist Party under Chairman Mao Zedong had recommended that the communists in the USA exploit racial — not class or economic — identity to win elections. Mao might have reasoned that in the US, since as people of certain races were historically oppressed and slavery was exhibit #1, the white majority could be classed as “oppressors.” Add up everyone else, include women, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and you easily win the “oppressed” majority sweepstakes.

Race-hustling is big business. The four Reverends — Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan — made it clear: No colonialists, imperialists or Zionists allowed, and that meant white people. Jackson himself led demonstrations highlighting that Western “white” civilization “had to go.” In short, only the “right” kinds of races, ethnicities, cultures and genders were allowed in the “Rainbow.”

Unfortunately, Sharpton, Joy Reid and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani today have fertile ground with which to spread racial division.

In 1965, twenty years before Jackson’s “Rainbow Coalition,” the US markedly changed its immigration laws. One lead advocate was Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Key sponsors Emanuel Celler (D-NY) and Phil Hart (D-MI) vehemently argued — explicitly — that the legislation was not seeking to change the racial demography or ethnic makeup of the country or “America’s western European heritage.”

In fact, nevertheless, that was exactly what the 1965 bill was designed to do — and its sponsors knew it. The demography of America had to change. Following the new law, the very American constitutional system that was deemed “oppressive” was out.

Now, some 70 years later, the transformation is well underway. 56 million people, or 16% of the US population, are now foreign-born. Ten to twenty million more may be here illegally. Not coincidentally, the “Democratic Socialists of America” winning primaries and elections around the nation are almost entirely foreign-born immigrants or first-generation descendants of newcomers, some even originally illegal aliens.

Many also come from nations that are economic and political failures, often totalitarian, some Marxist. As Dave Portnoy, CEO of Barstool Sports, put it:

“How we’ve gotten to socialism is somehow seen as this thing that’s gonna fix the United States, and by the way, the people who are saying it have all migrated from countries that are disasters to come to the United States!”

To escape Marxism, they bring it with them, then want to establish it here in America.

Those following in the footsteps of Jackson’s “Rainbow Coalition” pushed for the “right” kind of immigration: “people of color.” The assumption appears to be that people from failed third-world nations are largely poor, so that they are probably socialist in their political outlook: expecting to get the free health care, food stamps, housing subsidies and in-state tuition offered by America, irrespective of whether they arrive as illegal aliens or come through legal immigration channels.

Note that the race, ethnicity and gender of all “people of color” are inherited characteristics: none has any connection to merit. Once proclaimed to be part of the oppressed, you are in that class forever, unable to escape.

Conversely, once described as part of the oppressor class — white and successful — you also can never exit it. You are stuck for eternity, unless you are an exempted billionaire such as George Soros or a multi-millionaire such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren or Representative Ro Khanna. They get a special dispensation.

The oppressed — including the immigrant or alien class, legal or illegal — can be expanded forever, never to be depleted. Note that Mamdani’s “ethnic map” of New York excluded the Italians, Irish and Jews — all white, even as it was was careful to highlight people such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, as part of the newly arrived oppressed class who are promised more and more free stuff— housing, medical care, groceries and education. The Democratic Socialists of America even call for a 32-hour workweek, while still being paid for 40 hours.

As for immigration, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va) proclaimed that once you get by the border patrol or customs, the US owes you amnesty, citizenship — but most importantly, the right to vote. That is apparently what is meant by reforming — actually abolishing — ICE. If we are lucky, we might get to keep some border patrol elements “for show.”

The meaning, then, of US citizenship — as well as the idea of America and its constitution — would be abolished. The US Constitution would be shredded and the entire notion of checks and balances discarded, replaced by the tyranny of a straight-up majority or “mob rule.” There would be no president, no Senate, no Supreme Court and certainly no Electoral College. Marchers in the street might demand “No justice, no peace,” just as the “turbas divinas” or “divine mobs” (civilian paramilitary shock troops of Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega) did, where street violence becomes law — as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer might have hoped when he called for violence against Supreme Court justices:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Not only would the constitutional system of checks and balances and limited powers disappear, but also all notions of accomplishment and merit. In the US, medical students and doctors are being promoted and chosen due to their ethnic, racial or gender characteristics, all of which are inherited and not “achieved,” unless, as Ward Churchill or Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, you “falsely appropriate acquisition” to be part of the class of the oppressed. Many of these “Democratic Socialists” now want to defund not only the police and border patrol but also the Department of Defense. In short, they are announcing that they would like to turn the country over to criminals, drug dealers, traffickers and conquerors. No prisons, no borders, no accountability. It is much easier that way to take over a country. You create chaos, then rush in heroically with promises to fix it — the old “you are the arsonist and firefighter” two-step.

In this new society, merit is dismissed as a result of “white privilege” rather than as a measure or value of accomplishment. Only skin color or ethnicity has merit. Even medical schools in America have been valuing race as a measure of medical competency, leading to its explicit prohibition last year.

As merit goes out the window, education test scores are not needed. School choice is demonized. Catholic schools? More “white privilege.” The Smithsonian Institute published a 3rd to 12th grade school study guide that complains, “Whiteness: an ideology that reinforces power at the expense of others.”

Measurements of teaching are not based on whether the students end up knowing anything, but only if the right ideological content is taught by the “right” kind of instructor who is of the “right” race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

The entire “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) fraud is part of this clever campaign to remake America into another China or Cuba by using race and ethnicity as the lever.

The story of America that needs telling is, for instance, its extraordinary campaign to end slavery, and to extend freedom and liberty to billions of people worldwide.

That the US inherited slavery is what the noxious “1619 Project” missed, so they could sell slavery as a permanent “oppressor” brand on our Founders.

The first legislative act of the 14th US state, Vermont, was to abolish slavery. Why does no one in the US ever protest the slavery that persists in the rest of the planet?

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C. based foreign policy and defense think tank.