Putin’s KGB on American Soil

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is Threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual Life. I you can undermine these three areas, America will Collapse from within.”   —  Joseph Stalin 

When Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the Russian probe, I wasn’t surprised, but angered. Some Republicans, especially from the old establishments are not aware of the crucial role Russia plays as a principle destabilizer in the world affairs. Regrettably, our AG like them is ignorant about our mortal enemy, who harms and fights us for the last hundred years. If AG doesn’t know Russia and its KGB, he cannot control DOJ. AG made a monumental error and I was furious, understanding the circumstances of his mistake in the future, as all our troubles today caused by Russian KGB…

Today in 2018 you are witnessing that my prediction was right on the money. The Russian factor is a crux of the matter in all our world affairs. In my preceding column, The Global Spy Ring, I have presented the KGB’s world activities, now I want to give you some history of the KGB. I have been a witness of that history and a witness of monumental incompetence of our Intel, all seventeen in the post-Reagan and pre-Trump era. History is the Mother of all sciences, and I’ll try to show you the nature of the KGB full of intrigues, deception, corruption, and murders, its inextricable connection of the past with the present Trump era.

A Brief History of the First KGB Chairman        

Ten years ago, when I started writing What is Happening to America? I gave you some history of the KGB. Yet, today, I want to introduce a document that will give you a huge panorama of the ruthless Russian Intelligence, full of intrigues, deception, corruption, and murders. The portrait of the first KGB Chairman Ivan Serov exposes the bloody nature of the agency. Those who know Soviet history will find familiar names here:

“Ivan Serov, an officer of military intelligence, at the time of the purges of the GRU he managed not only to survive but also to transfer to work in the NKVD. On 12 June 1937 he appeared in the capacity of executioner of Marshal Tukhachevski and other leading figures of the Red Army. Amongst all the protagonists of the terror he distinguished himself as the most fervent exponent of ‘scenes on a massive scale’. He took part in the pursuit and liquidation of the inhabitants of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940 and in 1944-47.

Data exists as to his personal involvement in the murder of the Polish officers in Katyn. During the war Serov was one of the leaders of Smersh, and in August 1946 he personally took part in the execution of the command of the Russian Liberation Army under Lt.-General Vlasov. Subsequently he betrayed his leaders in Smersh and the NKGB, going over in time to the camp of the victorious groups. He deserted Abakumov’s group for that of Beria and betrayed him (as did General Ivashutin – the present GRU leader).

In 1953 he was deputy chief of the GRU and one of the conspirators against Beria. After the fall of Beria, Serov became Chairman of the KGB. Together with Ambassador Andropov he seized the leaders of the Hungarian revolution by deceit and took part in their torture and execution. In December 1958 Serov became chief of the GRU. As an ex-KGB and Smersh officer he had many enemies in the GRU. Under Serov’s leadership, corruption in GRU attained unbelievable proportions. In 1962 he was dismissed and quietly liquidated.”

What a vivid picture of Stalinist Gestapo, we’ve lived under! Serov was a typical Stalinist cadre of the oppressive apparatus of Soviet Socialism, the Soviet system couldn’t survive and exist without. Don’t be confused by the year 1954 and the first KGB Chairman. This apparatus was established by the Socialist Revolution in 1917 to fight capitalism, the apparatus had changed its name eight times to cover-up the crime committed during its entire existence… I am an eyewitness of this and a witness of the KGB crimes—the reason I use the name of the KGB …

Yuri Andropov—the Chairman of the KGB 1967-1982

This man played a crucial role in the life of the Soviet Union and… mankind. A Chairman of the KGB, started his career in 1956. My young readers, perhaps, have no idea of the significance the year 1956. Alas! It was the year when the Soviet tanks sunk in blood the Hungarian Revolution. Yuri Andropov was there as an Ambassador and a representative of the KGB in the Budapest Russian Embassy. Then, in 1956, Yuri Andropov have already been the globalist without borders, spreading Soviet Socialism globally. And this is perhaps the major difference between him and Ivan Serov, who was a simple executioner. A devoted disciple of Stalin, Andropov had thought globally from the top of incredible “prior achievements of the KGB.” He had brought the KGB to real sophistication, becoming a conduit between Stalin and Putin. At the Andropov time Putin was a student of law and consequently joint the KGB with the recommendation from the Communist Party.

Andropov’s personality was quite unusual for the Chairman of the KGB: he loved music, poetry, and often demonstrated his love. His appointment was a usual trick-deception of the Communist Party to change the image of the agency, but the reality illustrated the diabolic nature of the KGB by rivers of blood spread across the world in Andropov’s tenure. Under his watch and coordination there occurred the bloodiest terrorists’ attacks in the world, from the Munich murder of Israelis in the Olympic Village to the Johnstown tragedy in America, when nine hundred people had been poisoned and killed…

Andropov’s task was two-fold: to spread recruitment and infiltration globally, which he successfully achieved. Being a member of a law community for 25 years, I had the opportunity to discuss and watch his “successful achievements,” constantly communicating with lawyers, the rank-and-file members of the KGB. As a result, I defined Chapter 9 in 2007 as Evil Empire of Global Terrorism, What is Happening to America? Xlibris, 2012.

Andropov has changed drastically the protocol and scale of recruitment and infiltration. Though, the agenda of Socialism stays the same, the intensity of the KGB to prevent, disrupt, obstruct, and finally stop social mobility of capitalism has doubled if not quadrupled by sabotaging any achievements of capitalism, primarily American capitalism. Learning American behavior, the emphases was to recruit from a certain group of people: addicts of drugs and sex, people with Slavic names, Jewish women, siblings, bankrupts, and so on.

The main targets were American Intel and Security apparatus to paralyze their normal functioning. And of course, using legal and illegal immigration, an easy way to infiltrate and implant political operatives, and gangs into a targeted country. Like sleeping cells used by the Soviets during the revolution, Andropov’s cell consists of political operative, political agitator, and political organizer. The last two planned to be local citizens. It is not a coincidence that immigration is the most divided issue in the American politics today. Please, remember KGB’s main tools: lies, fraud, deceit, intimidation and psychological manipulations. …

Andropov planned to infiltrate and subordinate American social media, making it a dominant political force. He intended doing that by recruiting the journalist’s a-la Walter Durante, who was fooling and deceiving the West for several decades, helping Stalin to annihilate millions Russian souls. For this reason, Andropov was trying to plow into life an idea of equality and justice of Socialism, and implant the idea into traditional people’s consciousness, to cultivate new social mentality, and to low standards of morality. In the time the Eastern Europe has already been under Warsaw Pact and KGB’s primary targets England and France. Andropov’s target became the world and America to disrupt capitalism and create chaos. Andropov needed the social media, to act the way it was implemented in the Easter Europe by the Soviets—a coordinated effort of several institutions against the opposition.

Andropov became the KGB Chairman in 1967. It was a tragic time in America our boys and girls were dying in Vietnam. Besides that President Nixon came to White House–Andropov’s a personal enemy. (The story of their personal animosity deserves a separate column.) As a matter of fact, Andropov working in Europe in the 1950s had known the strength of human protests, he met them in Hungarian Revolt; it was very hard to extinguish people’s wrath. Based on his knowledge of Europe, Andropov began planning coordinated attacks on American soil and hurting American interests across the globe. Please, pay attention to Andropov’s opinion about Americans— “they are naïve, gullible, and crazy.”

Besides military help to Vietnam and extensive anti-war propaganda on American soil, under Andropov, a massive expansion of the Soviets took place in the Middle East and neighboring areas. Created, coordinated, and navigated by the KGB terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Shabbat began their destabilizing activities in the area against Israel. Look at the map of Andropov’s time and compare it with the events in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey today:

Remember that Uri Andropov is Putin’s “spiritual mentor!” they are “superior to the ordinary people” based on Stalin’s teachings. Consider the Soviets’ criminal intent, and the big picture of the Soviet mafia with all its tentacles and ideology would appear before you in America! Knowledge is the only SOLUTION for our survival. You can also see that venom of the KGB’s superiority is alive and well—from the first Chekist, Felix Dzerzhinsky to Yuri Andropov and Vladimir Putin. Just look at the Soviet henchmen around the world—they all were well-trained and inherited an audacity of arrogance and superiority in their behaviors from the Stalinist Chekists.

Andropov knew well Stalinist rule of “Divide and Conquer” to achieve a needed result, and he used and implemented them in all his plans. In America it was a visual and simple one—Black vs. White.  In my column a couple months ago, I asked you to find and read the document titled Message to the Black Movement, A Political Statement from the Black Underground, designed by the KGB to inflame the black underground in America. I wanted you to see for yourself the language of the KGB and origin of the notion of “White Oppressors” that affected several generations of Black America. It is for this reason I was constantly writing about WW III and Soviet Socialism, I named lately-Soviet Fascism to show you this war on American soil.

If you have any doubts in my identification of Soviet Fascism and WWIII, the first person to confirm the identity of both will be the Chairman of the KGB, Yuri Andropov. I will give you a conversation of two KGB Generals, Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect to the U.S, with Yuri Andropov:

 “In 1972 the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB Chairman, Yuri Andropov told me a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America that could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.  (“Russian Footprints,” by Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, August 24, 2008.)

General Pacepa wrote in the same article: “According to Andropov… the Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor, Andropov sermonized.” What can better confirm both of my terms Soviet Fascism and WWIII than those words? They summarized my entire writings. I remind you again that under Andropov the infiltration into Western civilization had tripled or quadruple. Under his watch occurred the bloodiest terrorists’ attacks in the world, from the Munich murder of Israelis in the Olympic Village to the Johnstown tragedy in America.

Don’t you think that Andropov’s words are racist with a fascist intent? I can tell you, Andropov just acknowledged the official Soviet policy that was running all minorities that way in the Soviet Union. You can tell me that there is no Soviet Union any longer. You are right. But the system of oppression has not changed: we are dealing with the Russian KGB Government, run by Putin today. Moreover, the agenda to destroy capitalism is alive and well as ever for hundred years after the Socialist Revolution. Allen West counted seventy Socialists in our Congress. I know more KGB agents in our government, predominantly Democrats and WW III begun hundred years ago against capitalism is going on. Just watch how Socialist Leadership of the Democrat Party is fighting capitalism in the 21st century…

Allow me now to go to a new spiral in WWIII and its roots. This war took a different form and scale in 2016-2018—the deadly war against President Trump. And again we are talking about the Democrats a “criminal cabal,” as Judge Jeannine called it. The Democrats have an audacity to call Trump a racist—their incompetence is staggering—they know nothing about Yuri Andropov! Now there is rumors that Trump had a connection with the agent from Kremlin. It is possible that this agent is Barack Obama, who I had been writing about his Russian connection for the last nine years. Please read Socialist Lies: from Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders, Xlibris, 2016.

I have also heard the question: “is this FBI or KGB?” asked by a member of the Congress, after he had read documents from the FBI. I can answer this question too—It IS the KGB, I have been writing and warning you for the last twenty-five years… The recent unmasking of over two hundred Americans for many people was an unusual and strange event. It’s absolutely clear to me: the major objectives of the KGB is the INFORMATION, in this case information about Americans to learn the approach to recruit them… This is another evidence of the Russian connection and Barack Obama…

Washington D.C. is currently boiling with the extraordinary new information about the FBI and the Democrat Party, which I called the party of Soviet fascism. The major task is the correct interpretation of the exposed information. It is not the FBI acting like the KGB. The crux of the matter is that—the KGB is running the war against Donald J. Trump within the FBI facilities by the FBI’s staff. Like Dossier on Trump, Putin’s KGB is freely acting on American soil. Plus watch the leadership of Democrats and especially Trojan Horse-Sanders. To get it right, you have to know the roots-history of the KGB, its nature and agenda described in my books and columns…

The Post

Several days ago, I saw the movie The Post—a well done wonderful thriller, reflecting political events in the 1970s.   At the end of the movie the Left audience clapped. Why not? After all it was Spielberg, Hanks and Streep overcoming attempted presidential censorship of the press and the Streep character standing up to men. Everything in the movie proceeding smoothly, like it had been managed behind the scene by a magic wand and we do not know this mysterious outside force.    It was anti-war, anti-Vietnam, anti-men and a kick at Nixon of the Watergate scandal. We are “left” with the impression that The Washington Post and the New York Times dig deep, that presidents always lie and try to censor the press, which is really just trying to uncover the truth. We are to take that emotionally charged picture and apply it to today’s events.

But what if we dig deeper. What if the audience is being emotionally manipulated. Hanks and Streep apply their tricks of the trade, with Streep way over the top. If we look deeper at the “true” story, why would the Streep character’s husband commit suicide if he loved the paper, fit perfectly in his job and apparently had a happy loving family? What if his death wasn’t suicide? Who would benefit from his death to be the head of a newspaper, which could shape public opinion? I believe Mrs. Graham and through her Andropov’s agency would be a beneficiary…

Is the audience of this movie not being manipulated to compare the events then with the current political scene? That we are currently engaged in another unwinnable war in Afghanistan, that the current President is trying to muzzle The Post, New York Times (and CNN) from telling the “truth”?;  a position already held by the majority of the Left minded audience. No wonder they clapped, no wonder this movie will be a big hit and might spark further action from the Left to pressure for impeachment. The country is indeed divided like never before.

I was sitting on tension the whole movie, intrigued by the smooth occurrence of the events. Yet, only awareness and knowledge can interpret the movie and the current events in Washington D.C.–an abuse of power of the FBI and the FISA Court. But returning to movie, I have read another live-story of the Post’s owner Katherine Graham. People close to her had suspected that she killed her husband, when he wanted to divide their assets and leave her for another woman.  She definitely did not want to lose The Post.

The real history of her live is quite interesting. Eugene Meyer, her Father handed over the newspaper to his son-in-law. Her Father gave the Post to Philip Graham, her husband rather than her in 1959. There are should be the reasons for such a strange decision: Katharine was quite an educated woman, working within the Post for many years. Please, look at her words said in 1970: “The thing women must do to rise to power is to redefine their femininity. Once, power was considered a masculine attribute. In fact, power has no sex.” Katharine Graham.

No doubts, she had a strong character. Maybe her Father had also suspected something? By the way, all suspicions of the people, pertaining to her murder of the husband, have never been refute or rebutted by the family.

The people who watched the movie and clapped did not know Katharine Graham’s real live, they also haven’t read my books; information of them was suppressed by the FBI. Moreover, the editors of both The Post and the New York Times had admitted in the movie that they did know the real source of the information they both had printed. For me, knowing a deep infiltration of the KGB into all strata of American society and the Democrat Party, it was clear that the entire story in the movie was created and run by the KGB in 1971, like they run Trump’s Dossier in 2016.

I recommend the people after reading this column to go and see the movie The Post and then find the real information about Katharine Graham. I took information about her from Wikipedia and The True Story of The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin. I believe the author and his research, he is from Russia and knows the subject. For me the movie was the First Act of the spectacle performed by the KGB in1971, dethroning President Nixon. We are witnessing today the Second Act of the same spectacle by the KGB trying to dethrone American President in 2018.

Yet, the truth has its magic way to come to surface and sometimes with the touch of irony. Katherine Graham had allowed publication of the information beneficiary to the Andropov KGB in 1971. Today, our Congress debates a publication of the FBI material, exposing the activities of the FBI, the Democrats, and the Putin KGB. We will know the traitors of the 21st century. But nothing can be compared with the “golden goose” that Andropov got in 1960. It could’ve been an accidental occurrence, but Andropov and his “golden goose” had changed the world and not to the better…  Stay tune!

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.

P.S. Timing is helping me to educate all Americans. When I completed the column, our government had already been shutdown by the Democrat’s using Andropov’s promised plan to disrupt, obstruct, and use “potential momentum” to stopped social mobility of capitalism. They are pretending to fight for DACA. They lie—this is a typical KGB play book, maneuver for the Democrat to survive, knowing about upcoming classified material, a document showing criminal intent committed by the FBI and Obama’s administration. The question, of whether it is the FBI or old KGB? Will be answered by me: It is Putin’s KGB on American soil. We are witnessing, as I predicted, another Watergate—this time, a quadruple and international one. This kind of doings will continue until the Democrat Party is exposed for what it really is…

As Palestinian children ‘starve’ Mahmoud Abbas is set to take possession of a new $50 million private jet!

Amid U.S. funding cuts to UNRWA, and threats to cut direct Palestinian Authority (PA) funding, Mahmoud Abbas is set to take possession of a new $50 million private jet.

Half of PA foreign aid goes towards payments to imprisoned terrorists or dead terrorists’ families, while Palestinian “leadership” claims Donald Trump is starving children by withholding funding for the regime in Ramallah.

The illegitimate leader of the fictitious state will need his new wings to fly around the world begging for the money lost from shunning the U.S.

Amid funding cut fears, PA purchases $50 million private jet for Abbas — report

By TOI STAFF from The Times of Israel

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah on January 14, 2018. (AFP PHOTO / ABBAS MOMANI)

Even as the Palestinian Authority faces major funding cuts from the US, it has purchased a new luxurious $50 million private jet to be used by President Mahmoud Abbas, Hadashot news reported Wednesday.

The report, which did not provide sourcing, said the plane was set to be delivered to Amman within weeks, and will be stationed there for use by the PA chief.

Funding for the plane was said to have been provided both from the PA budget ($20 million) and from the Palestinian National Fund ($30 million).

The report comes amid deep cuts to US aid to the Palestinians, and reports that further cuts may be coming. 

When US President Donald Trump originally threatened to cut aid earlier this month, top PLO official Saeb Erekat said it would lead to starvation among Palestinian refugee children.

Read more.


Europe Comes Up With Perfectly Orwellian Responses to ‘Fake News’

In their zeal to stamp out “fake news,” European governments are turning toward Orwellian solutions that are worse than the disease.

The European Commission recently created a 39-member panel to explore avenues to eliminate fake news. On Twitter, it announced that it seeks to find a “balanced approach” to protecting free speech and making sure citizens get “reliable information.”

This follows in the footsteps of individual governments in Europe that have decided that the way to defeat fake news is to have the government decide what the truth is.

Germany recently enacted a law that allows the government to censor social media and fine related companies that won’t take down what government officials deem fake news or hate speech.

France isn’t far behind. French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a ban on fake news, especially around election time, “in order to protect democracy.”

And on Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced the creation of a commission to respond to fake news called the National Security Communications Unit.

A spokesperson for the May government said:

“Digital communications is constantly evolving and we are looking at ways to meet the challenging media landscape by harnessing the power of new technology for good.”

The key problem with these proposals is obvious, as the Washington Examiner highlighted in an editorial.

“One must ask who will decide which news is real and respectable, on the one hand, and which, on the other, is fake and must be censored?” the Examiner asked, before referring to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984”:

Will it be bureaucrats in a censor’s office in a bigger agency? Or, will their work be so extensive and important that they will need a new agency of their own? Will they go the full Orwell and name it the Ministry of Truth?

As Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed 19th-century French observer of American institutions, wrote of such government-controlled speech:

Whoever should be able to create and maintain a tribunal of this kind would waste his time in prosecuting the liberty of the press; for he would be the absolute master of the whole community and would be as free to rid himself of the authors as of their writings.

Censorship of this sort is what the Founding Fathers feared. They knew that despite the problems occasionally caused by the proliferation of fake news and false ideas, it was far more dangerous to make the government the arbiter of what is true and false rather than citizens.

Therefore, the Founders created the First Amendment and instilled a culture that respected the individual right to free speech. This was the best and perhaps only way, in the fallible world of men, ultimately to get to the truth.

There is ample evidence that the proliferation of fake news has far less consequential impact than doomsayers would admit.

A recent study concluded that while fake news often spreads far with the help of tools such as social media, it has a shallow impact on what Americans believe. This begs the question of why near-authoritarian measures would be implemented that so badly undermine free speech rights.

For all the worry over foreign, authoritarian regimes manipulating our elections with propaganda, by implementing government-run commissions on fake news we will simply be turning to repressive means to solve this perceived problem.

The proposed commissions to weigh free speech rights against delivering the “correct” news would likely have shallow utility even if they somehow could provide “accurate” stories to citizens. However, giving such panels the power to do so would be Tocqueville’s worst nightmare: a license to impose government’s views on the people and squash potentially legitimate dissent.

This is why it’s particularly absurd that the Committee to Protect Journalists, a group dedicated to promoting free speech for journalists, labeled President Donald Trump as the world’s greatest threat to press freedom.

The Federalist’s David Harsanyi wrote:

“Trump’s attacks on journalists—some of it brought on by their own shoddy and partisan behavior—are often unseemly and unhealthy, but it hasn’t stopped anyone from engaging, investigating, writing, saying, protesting or sharing their deep thoughts with the entire group.”

Though Trump has proposed strengthening libel laws, a more traditional way of curbing intentional media falsehoods, his administration has made no widespread legal attack on the ability of Americans to disseminate news and views.

Saying mean things on Twitter isn’t an attack on free speech, but censorship by an unaccountable government board certainly is.

For all the hyperbole and hysteria following the coverage of the president, it has ultimately been our celebrated friends across the pond who’ve decided to take an ax to free speech, cloaked in the soothing rhetoric of protecting democracy.

At times like this we can be thankful for the Founders and the First Amendment, but this shouldn’t lull us into thinking that these terrible ideas won’t make their way here too.


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: The History of Fake News in the United States

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


The Humanitarian Hoax of DACA: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) advocacy as altruistic when in fact it was designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democrat Party with its ongoing Resistance movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy the capitalist infrastructure of American democracy through deceitful immigration reforms. This is how it works.

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was the 2012 product of Obama’s illegal executive overreach. The lesser known DAPA Deferred Action for Parents of Americans was Obama’s 2014 expansion program that legalized illegal alien parents whose children became legal American citizens through birthright citizenship.

Amnesty programs for illegal immigrants guaranteed Democrat votes but Obama had a problem selling the idea to Congress even though Democrats had control of both Houses. Illegal aliens needed a new image. No problem for Obama – his Leftist image-makers went to work.

Soon illegal aliens became undocumented aliens, then undocumented workers, then unauthorized immigrants, then undocumented immigrants, and finally the loftiest brand of them all – Dreamers. Obama’s rebranded illegal aliens were transformed into Dreamers and protecting them was merchandised as the humanitarian imperative for America. Millennials signed on in droves but here is the problem.

Rebranding is a marketing tool used by advertisers to sell products that don’t sell. Rebranding changes the name but it does not change the product. Dreamers are still illegal aliens. So why would Obama resort to executive overreach to sell rebranded illegal immigration?? Because Obama needed the positive image of Dreamers to sell DACA and DAPA as altruistic programs when they were actually deceitful Democrat power-grabs designed to tip red states blue. It was always about the votes.

USA Today reports that according to Migration Policy Institute there are 3.6 million Dreamers living in the U.S. today – not the oft-repeated 800,000. “The 3.6 million estimate of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. before their 18th birthday comes from the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that studies global immigration patterns. That is roughly a third of all undocumented immigrants in the country and does not include millions of their immediate family members who are U.S. citizens.”

The Democrat narrative is that deportations of illegal aliens would be amoral and an economic calamity. The reality is that under-educated non-working unauthorized immigrants whether they are Dreamers or not drain the economy instead of improving it. The undisclosed underbelly of the Leftist narrative is that most illegal aliens living in Republican states if awarded amnesty would vote Democrat and tilt red states to blue. If amnesty and chain migration pass, the additional Democrat votes would put several red states in play particularly Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Michael Cutler warns us about the consequences of DACA to national security and argues that DACA is the Immigration Trojan Horse. Cutler contends that, “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) created a massive amnesty program that ultimately led to the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. It has been said that insanity is doing the same things the same way and expecting a different outcome.”

So it is with DACA. Millions of illegal immigrants awarded amnesty will vote to elect a Democrat President who will open the borders and flood the country with more immigrants who will be granted voting rights and will vote Democrat. This chain will accomplish the Leftist goal to destroy our constitutional republic and replace it with socialism. The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom and upward mobility the world has ever known. Protection of our republic is the essence of President Trump’s America-first policies.

President Trump revoked DAPA in June 2017 and ended DACA in September 2017 saying “The legislative, not the executive branch writes these [immigration] laws.” Yet DACA continues to be discussed and marketed to a trusting public by Obama’s Resistance movement as the altruistic responsibility of compassionate American citizens.

For 241 years America has said NO to monarchies, NO to oligarchies, NO to totalitarianism, NO to authoritarianism, and NO to illegal immigration. We are a country of LEGAL immigrants not a country of illegal immigrants. We have fought to preserve our constitutional republic with its checks and balances on power codified in our Constitution to protect our individual rights and way of life. Socialism is the great leftist scam being perpetrated on the American people and implemented through destructive leftist immigration policies.

Millennials have no idea what socialism is in practice. Socialism is most definitely not the Bernie Sanders fantasy of free stuff or the John Lennon song “Imagine” that they are being indoctrinated with. Socialism is an infantilizing political structure in which there is no private property and the government owns all means of production. Citizens are wards of the state and subject to the whims of the government. The government tells its dependent subjects what they can have and how much they can have. There is no freedom or upward mobility in socialism because there is no private ownership. There is only the ruling elite and the enslaved population who serve them. The American dream is dead in socialism.

Unrestricted immigration particularly Dreamers and chain migration will ultimately transform America the beautiful into a socialist state. The American dream will be sacrificed to DACA Dreamers. Why? The answer is that socialism is the prerequisite political infrastructure to internationalize sovereign countries in preparation for one-world government. Globalism’s one-world government is the hidden motive for the Leftist Democrat policies that endorse the humanitarian hoax of DACA and chain migration.

Socialism is deceitfully marketed as the great equalizer – the social system that will provide social justice and income equality. Socialism is the big lie of the 21st century because in reality socialism only benefits the elitists who rule the country. All anyone has to do is look at Cuba and Venezuela where the rulers live like kings and the ruled suffer shortages, deprivation, and poverty.

We cannot allow DACA Dreamers to tilt America toward leftist socialism which robs all Americans of their liberty except the elitists in power. Choosing the Dreamer’s dreams over the American dream is a lethal choice that will end our constitutional republic – but that was always the point of the humanitarian hoax of DACA – to kill America with “kindness.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Experts: Government Shutdown May Have Caused Human Combustion

In one of the most controversial and destructive acts of his presidency, Donald Trump, the worst Republican president since Hitler, shut down the government! This is bad news for all Americans according to several government agencies.

Senior accountant of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Fred “Nonpartisan” Phelps, says the shutdown may cost the average American family up to $85,000 per day. “Women and minorities would be hardest hit,” said Phelps coining a new phrase.

Citizens may not be able to access data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Over the next month, children will be asking, “Mommy, what’s a transportation statistic?” The impact this will have on our children, our future, is simply unacceptable and entirely avoidable.

Furthermore, if no deal is reached, funding will be halted for the Department for the Prevention of Spontaneous Human Combustion causing them to shut down their hotline, a service otherwise accessible to millions of Americans. Estimates show that over 1,475,286.04 preventable spontaneous combustions will take place every minute past midnight for as long as Trump refuses to see reason and negotiate.

Worse yet, millions of necessary government employees will have to go without work wondering when they will be compensated for what essentially amounts to a paid vacation.

“The stress is killing me,” said Claude McElroy of the Agency of Banjo String Quality Assurance. “If I’d known Trump was gonna do this, I’da planned for a fishin’ trip. Instead, all I can do is stay at home an’ watch YouTube videos all day like I do at work. I’m madder ‘n a wet hen, and I feel like I could blow up any minute now. Course, there ain’t nothin’ I can do ’bout it since Trump come around and personally cut my phone line. Now I can’t call that spontaneous combustion hotline and git the help I need. The Mrs. is already crying her eyes out, and that Trump don’t care!”

Completely unmoved by the suffering he’s inflicted on middle class Americans, sources close to the president say that he spent the afternoon with Ivanka checking out a new top hat to go with his obscenely expensive pinstripe tuxedo. Anonymous sources claim that Trump, while inserting a monocle into his right eye to inspect his new hat, simply told reporters, “I can’t be bothered with that.”

RELATED VIDEO: A Musical Parody Of Overly Dramatic Democrats!

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Komissar al-Blogunov  originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.

The Beginning of the End of the Progressive Democratic Party?

The government shutdown by Democrats was a desperation move. And they lost. Even with mostly friendly media cover, they were in such an untenable position that Sen. Chuck Schumer had to cave.

And yet they #Resist! — with the Women’s March for Democracy, or some such nonsense; social media censorship of conservative outlets, endless late-night comedian propagandizing and hair-on-fire media allies.

While they imagine in their fantasy world they are resisting a mad King who is hell-bent on destroying the kingdom, they’re really resisting a ton of great things happening for Americans — and to some degree the world. And that’s becoming more obvious.

It’s really difficult for even the media to hide an economy going gangbusters — before the tax cuts even officially go into effect. More than 80 percent of Americans will get more money in their paychecks next month. Dozens of major companies have announced bonuses, pay raises, minimum $15-per-hour wages, and one company — Apple — is repatriating so much money to invest in the country that their taxes alone could fund nearly two walls on our southern border.

GDP is heading toward 4 percent, unemployment is dropping to what economists consider full employment levels (because there are always a few percentage points of people between jobs) and the unemployment level for black Americans is now at its lowest point since 1972.

People are feeling so much better about the economy that a recent Quinnipiac University poll revealed record-high levels of economic optimism among Americans. Two-thirds of American voters described the state of the nation’s economy as excellent or good. Further, 73 percent of voters regard their own financial situations as excellent or good. And all this has boosted Trump’s low approvals despite endless negative media.

This is not at all what the Democrats wanted while trying to build momentum toward the midterms where, in their imaginary land, they expect to win back the House and the Senate and immediately begin impeachment hearings against Trump because they don’t like some stuff he says. So, a government shutdown, which the media always blame on Republicans and, if lasting a few weeks or longer, could cause material damage to the economy — which might be good for Democrats in November.

Yes. Things are that cold-hearted in progressive circles right now. The fact that such a shutdown for pure political gain would hurt Americans — and a higher portion of Democratic-voting Americans — was not a problematic means to gain an end for a major American party is disturbing. Schumer’s quick capitulation is pretty surprising. He either had polling or he understood the optics of reality.

But this is just the latest in an ongoing flow of progressive Democrat actions that get further and further from mainstream Americans — and mainstream American voters.

Consider: Since 2015, California gives anyone who asks for a driver’s license a driver’s license. Further, the law requires the state DMV to send all those records to the Secretary of State for voter registration, allowing non-Americans in the country illegally to register to vote in American elections. Insane, yes. But wait, there’s more! Liberal groups such as League of Women Voters and La Raza complained that requiring illegals to make two stops to get a license and to vote was too much hardship. So they sued and, naturally in California, a judge ruled in their favor.

So California already has thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions — no one knows — of non-Americans voting legally in the state, including in federal elections. Now, they don’t even need to go register — they’re automatically good to go. Just sneak into the country across the non-walled border, head to the California DMV for your driver’s license and vote in the midterms and the next presidential election. Don’t worry. The ballot is helpfully in Spanish for you.

And the state will protect you from law-abiding Californians. The state is not only protecting and promoting illegals as a sanctuary state, but threatening prosecution of anyone who actually helps federal officials with lawbreakers.

California is the tip of the spear of the modern progressive Democratic state. Where it leads, Democrats tend to follow. And while all the illegalities are going on in California, what they are really doing is driving the national Democratic party further from the political center of America.

On the other coast, it’s getting harder and harder for most Americans to look the other way from the sewer our nation’s capital has become, with astonishing corruption, unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agendas committing felonies with impunity to undermine a democratically elected president, apparent cover-ups by national law-enforcement and the dramatic decline in trust of the FBI — a once well-respected if not revered institution that now is found to be filled at the top with corruption.

This is known on the right as part of the Deep State, along with the weaponized IRS and the State Department, which is littered with lifers who willingly sabotage the president and leak information, and other portions of the federal labyrinth seeking to trap Trump. All of this is the apparatus and ally of the progressive Democratic Party. More allies include Antifa, the boys are girls are boys imbroglio crowd, BLM extremists,

On the foreign front, within a year of Trump taking office and changing the rules of engagement for American forces, ISIS is essentially crushed as a land-holding caliphate. It may continue as a terrorist organization, but with far fewer resources to commit atrocities. This is good for all the peoples of the Middle East and world. Plus, somehow, North Korea and South Korea are actually talking to each other and Russia is not attempting anymore land grabs since Trump ordered a missile attack against their Syrian allies. A Trump red line will be enforced, and Putin likely understands that.

It’s hard to see how these Republican successes combined with California craziness and Washington corruption adds up to Democrats winning majorities in Congress because of Trump. Law-and-order Republicans and President Trump have a lot of cleaning up to do inside the federal government, and cannot put that off much longer.

And it’s possible the implosion of the men-in-women’s-bathrooms party is already underway.

Remember, since 2008, the Democratic Party has been electorally decimated. The Hill wrote this after the November 2016 election: “Republicans will control 4,170 state legislative seats after last week’s elections, while Democrats will control 3,129 seats in the nation’s 98 partisan legislative chambers.” That a complete flip from 2008. “Since Obama took office, Republicans have captured control of 27 state legislative chambers Democrats held after the 2008 elections. The GOP now controls the most legislative seats it has held since the founding of the party.” (ital added)

The only question there is whether those losses were the function of a popular but deeply incompetent president in Barak Obama, or a harbinger for the Democratic Party.

There will always be a Democratic Party. But just as the party had to move away from the progressive abyss and toward the center when a group including Bill Clinton formed the Democratic Leadership Council in the late 1980s, it may again need to adopt a more centrist, moderate, pro-American approach. Such an attempt would cause quite a crack up among the most extreme, loud and active grassroots members, but might be the only salvation to keep that party from going into the wilderness for a generation.


Democrats’ Shutdown A Desperate Diversion from Economic Success
A Government Shutdown is Absolutely Good and Inspirational
The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment
Immigration Reform Congress Should Send to Trump
Why a Bible-Believing Christian Supports Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit the The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

NFL Faces Ad-versity from Vets’ Group

The NFL can’t afford more bad publicity, but that’s exactly what they’re getting after their latest clash with veterans. You’d think the league’s abysmal ratings would have them rethinking their business model. Not so far, according to Fox News’s Todd Starnes. Instead of shying away from the anti-Americanism that’s hurting them, the NFL is embracing more!

As if five months of anthem controversy isn’t enough, Commissioner Roger Goodell is heading into the league’s biggest game with a black cloud hanging over the sport.

Its relationship with the military already on shaky ground, Goodell didn’t exactly further the peace process when he blocked American Veterans (AMVETS) from airing a Super Bowl ad on patriotism. The ad (you can watch it here) includes a two-word message: “#PleaseStand.”

“It’s a simple, polite request that represents the sentiment of our membership, particularly those whose missing or paralyzed arms or limbs preclude standing,” group National Commander Marion Polk explained.Apparently, the NFL didn’t take it that way and rejected the ad outright. The Super Bowl, insisted league spokesman Brian McCarthy, “is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, [and] teams” — not, apparently, the men and women who guard the freedom that makes that celebration possible. “It’s never,” McCarthy said with a straight face, “been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”

Is that so? Where was McCarthy last year when the ads were so political that they made more headlines than the actual game? For corporate heavyweights like Google, Coca-Cola, 84 Lumber, Budweiser, and Airbnb, staying on the sidelines in the early days of the Trump administration wasn’t an option for Super Bowl LI. They left product placement in the rearview and opted for controversial statements on everything from immigration to sexuality. “We all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept,” Airbnb insisted. Google squeezed in plenty of subliminal messages — and some not-so-subliminal rainbow flags.

Then there was 84 Lumber, who didn’t win over a lot of conservatives with its attack on Trump’s immigration crackdown in its commercial bashing of a Mexican border wall. “There is an example of an unsophisticated advertiser making a political statement, and not really caring whether it helps them sell any lumber,” said Allen Adamson, founder of Brand Simple Consulting. Then, of course, there was Audi, which tried to make a statement about equal pay — only to be outed for having an all-male board.

As usual, the only thing more astounding than the NFL’s censorship is its hypocrisy. And since when did honoring the flag become a political statement anyway? It used to be just good manners. “Perhaps Goodell was concerned that a ‘political statement’ in the game-day program might take away from the ‘political statements’ being made on the football field when players take a knee,” Todd suggested. And for all of its radical politics, Polk points out, the NFL certainly doesn’t mind exploiting the military when it’s convenient. “Veterans are good for more than just military aircraft flyovers, photo opportunities during halftime, or props to sell camouflage-style NFL apparel, although the NFL’s stance… says otherwise.”

If there’s room for the “free speech” of Colin Kaepernick, then surely there’s room for the majority of Americans who are disgusted by his display. “Freedom of speech works both ways,” Polk warns. “We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought — and in many cases died — for. But imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.”

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Christianity Gets a Faith Lift… from Harvard

Have States Thrown in the Towel on Bathrooms?

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Hollywood is Out of Control. Is it Time to Reinstate Public ‘Morality Codes’?

Chris Lewis from the University of Colorado Boulder produced a short historical report on the The Production Code of 1930, known as The Hays Code. To read The Production Code published on March 31, 1930 click here.

The historical report states:

From virtually the earliest years of their existence, movies were regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality. In the United States, censorship was exercised pretty much on a local option basis. Many states and individual cities had their own censorship boards that often ordered the deletion of shots, scenes, and/or title cards before a film could be exhibited within its borders, sometimes banning films outright. The fact that a film was banned somewhere was very often turned into a marketing ploy to gain publicity in other, less easily offended cities. [Emphasis added]

Lewis noted:

By 1922, however, spurred by several recent high-profile scandals involving Hollywood celebrities, calls for some type of federal action were heard. In self-defense, motion picture producers passed a succession of moral rules or “codes” meant to guide the content of motion pictures, overseen by former postmaster Will Hays and often referred to as the “Hays Code.” [Emphasis added]

Karl Marx said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” The Production Code of 1930 was in-part a reaction to the “first sexual revolution” which, according to Wikipedia, was during the Roaring Twenties after World War I and it included writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Edna Saint Vincent Millay, and Ernest Hemingway.

It appears that Hollywood is repeating itself and is seen by many as farcical.

In 2017 Americans saw Hollywood battered by an ongoing series of sex scandals first reported in an October 5th, 2017 New York Times article titled “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades.” This story, coupled with growing numbers of both actors and actresses coming forward to report sexual abuses, has led to the #MeToo movement.

Lewis wrote:

In 1930, therefore, a new code—which came to be known as the Hollywood Production Code—was written. The industry accepted it nominally, although many movies stretched it to its limits or simply ignored it, prompting more public outcry. Movies made between 1930-34 are thus often referred to as “pre-code,” even though the Production Code was theoretically in effect. Many filmmakers during this period tried to stretch the code to its limits, if not defying it outright, especially in their use of sexual innuendoes, risqué costumes, and implicitly immoral characters. [Emphasis added]

In 1968 The Production Code of 1930 was abandoned by Hollywood and replaced by a letter rating system for movies, which, slightly modified, is still used today. This change in ratings was in-part a reaction to the “second sexual revolution.” According to Wikipedia,

[T]he age of changes in perception and practices of sexuality that developed from around 1960 was to reach mainstream America, most of western Europe, and parts of Asia. Indeed, the available quantitative evidence demonstrates that measures of non-traditional sexual behavior (e.g., gonorrhea incidence, births out of wedlock, and births to teenagers) began to rise dramatically in the mid to late 1950s. It brought about profound shifts in the attitudes to women’s sexuality, homosexuality, pre-marital sexuality and the freedom of sexual expression.

Psychologists and scientists such as Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey influenced the revolution, as well as literature and films, and the social movements of the period, including the counterculture movement, the women’s movement, and the gay rights movement. The counterculture contributed to the awareness of radical cultural change that was the social matrix of the sexual revolution. [Emphasis added]

Lewis wrote this about the current system of ratings:

… [The] Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) letter ratings was first established in 1968 (and later slightly modified), freeing filmmakers to include whatever content they desired and submit it for an official rating. These ratings, however, were not based upon moral values or attitudes (as the Production Code’s guidelines had emphasized), but simply upon the content itself. Somewhat vague quotas for levels of violence, sexual activity or discussions, nudity, and profanity were used to divide films into groups, with a letter assigned to give viewers a rough idea of what it might or might not contain. [Emphasis added]

Perhaps it is time to go back to a system based upon ‘moral values or attitudes” in order to save future generations?

Hollywood has become the purveyor of immorality and politics for profit. Hollywood actively promotes the counterculture, the pro-choice women’s, and the gay rights movements. While it is true that the individual can decide not to go the a particular movie because it does not appeal to their sensibilities. The rapid growth of streaming videos on YouTube, via smart phones, computers, and tablets, make it nearly impossible to control content.

It may be time to go back to insure the future. Why? Because in 2018 movies are regarded by many people as a baleful influence on public morality.

President Trump has made defending religious liberty a hallmark of his administration. It may be time for cities, states and Congress to defend morality and re-institute “morality codes” for not only movies but online and streaming content?

What do you think?

RELATED ARTICLE: Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based on Ideology, Not Science

Twenty-eight years ago, the release of “When Harry Met Sally” highlighted one big debate: whether men and women could really be just friends.

That question may still be up in the air, but now we are being forced to confront a more fundamental debate: whether men can really become women.

America is in the midst of what has been called a “transgender moment.” In the space of a year, transgender issues went from something that most Americans had never heard of to a cause claiming the mantle of civil rights.

But can a boy truly be “trapped” in a girl’s body? Can modern medicine really “reassign” sex? Is sex something “assigned” in the first place? What’s the loving response to a friend or child experiencing a gender identity conflict? What should our law say on these issues?

These shouldn’t be difficult questions.

Just a few years before “When Harry Met Sally” hit theaters, Dr. Paul McHugh thought he had convinced the vast majority of medical professionals not to go along with bold claims about sex and gender being proffered by some of his colleagues. And as chair of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, McHugh put a stop to sex-reassignment surgery at Hopkins.

Once the elite Johns Hopkins did this, many medical centers across the nation followed suit.

But in recent years we have seen a resurgence of these drastic procedures—not in light of new scientific evidence, mind you, but as a result of a growing ideological movement. Such is our transgender moment.

The people increasingly in the spotlight of this moment are children.

In the past 10 years, dozens of pediatric gender clinics have sprung up throughout the United States. In 2007, Boston Children’s Hospital “became the first major program in the United States to focus on transgender children and adolescents,” as its own website brags.

A decade later, over 45 gender clinics opened their doors to our nation’s children—telling parents that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones may be the only way to prevent teen suicides.

Never mind that according to the best studies—the ones that even transgender activists themselves cite—80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will come to identify with and embrace their bodily sex.

Never mind that 41 percent of people who identify as transgender will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, compared to 4.6 percent of the general population. Never mind that people who have had transition surgery are 19 times more likely than average to die by suicide.

These statistics should stop us in our tracks. Clearly, we must work to find ways to effectively prevent these suicides and address the underlying causes. We certainly shouldn’t be encouraging children to “transition.”

Many psychologists and psychiatrists think of gender dysphoria as similar to other dysphorias, or forms of discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia. The feelings of discomfort can lead to mistaken beliefs about oneself or about reality, and then to actions in accordance with those false beliefs.

The most helpful therapies focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.

Operating in the background is a sound understanding of physical and mental health—proper function of one’s body and mind—and a sound understanding of medicine as a practice aimed at restoring health, not simply satisfying the desires of patients.

For human beings to flourish, they need to feel comfortable in their own bodies, readily identify with their sex, and believe that they are who they actually are.

In my new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” I argue that McHugh got it right. The best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality, and of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry.

In my book I offer a balanced approach to the policy issues, a nuanced vision of human embodiment, and a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

Despite activists’ best efforts to put up a unified front, Harry cannot become Sally. Activists’ desperate insistence to the contrary suggests that the transgender moment is fleeting.


Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: .


When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment

Planned Transgenderhood

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


VIDEO: Google Removes Fact-Check Feature Targeting Conservative Media

“As we continue to work on addressing this problem and assess how best to serve our users, we are putting the experiment on hold.” a Google spokeswoman says of the company’s fact-check feature.

Google says it is discontinuing its fact-check feature because it proved to be too faulty for public use, directly attributing the decision to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The company has no date set for when it will return, if ever.

“We launched the reviewed claims feature at the end of last year as an experiment with the aim of helping people quickly learn more about news publications,” a spokeswoman for Google said, while also adding that The Daily Caller News Foundation was the catalyst for the recent move. “We said previously that we encountered challenges in our systems that maps fact checks to publishers, and on further examination it’s clear that we are unable to deliver the quality we’d like for users.”

There were two main problems with the fact-check widget, which appeared on the sidebar of Google’s search results for very few sites and publications.

First, the legitimate outlets chosen were virtually all ones with conservative audiences. The Daily Caller, for example, was given such treatment, while sites like Vox, Slate, The Huffington Post, Mother Jones, and several others clearly on the left side of the political spectrum were not.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, many of the fact checks were wrong. One of the purported reviewed claims was for an article that straightforwardly reported that yet another member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team was a donor for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.

Google attributed the fact check to The Washington Post, something its vice president of communications took issue with.

Screenshot from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“We went back and double-checked the story and the information submitted to Google, and The Daily Caller was not mentioned at all, even in links,” The Washington Post’s Kristine Coratti said. “We clearly labeled the source, so I cannot speak to how The Daily Caller ended up being erroneously listed as the source of the fact-checked quote in this case.”

After days of back-and-forth with representatives at Google, The Daily Caller News Foundation was told it was probably due to the algorithms, something the company doesn’t talk about as a matter of internal policy.

Google removed that single purported fact check at the time of The Daily Caller News Foundation’s initial inquiries, but there were several others that were also false, if not all of them.

For instance, a “claim” attributed to The Daily Caller by Google’s feature and its third-party fact-checking partner Snopes was “a transgender woman raped a young girl in a women’s bathroom because bills were passed … ”

Screenshot from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

A quick read of the news piece shows there was no mention of a bill or any form of legislation. The story was merely a straightforward reporting of a disturbing incident originally reported on by a local outlet.

The whole program has been suspended for the foreseeable future as of Friday. Google engineers are reportedly heading back to the drawing boards to see how they can vastly improve a fact-check system, while it remains to be seen if the company will abandon the project altogether.

“As we continue to work on addressing this problem and assess how best to serve our users,” the Google spokeswoman continued, “we are putting the experiment on hold.”

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Government Shutdown is Absolutely Good and Inspirational

With all the hand-wringing over the idea of a “government shutdown,” lost is whether this is Armageddon or a little breath of fresh air truth.

First of all, let’s discard the political fears that Republicans will be blamed for the shutdown. Of course they will. Even before the media lost their minds 2017 style, the mainstream, partisan Democrat media was going to blame Republicans like they did in 2013 and in 1995 and 1996 — the three largest profile government shutdowns when Democrats had the White House. It’s not like they are going to blame their own party.

So then the question becomes: Is such a shutdown a terrible event — as all Democrats, most Washington Republicans and the media say it is? No. Not at all. In fact, it could be downright educational for Americans to see that “non-essential” government employees and programs may also be classified as unnecessary. So perhaps it could be inspirational for Congress.

Because unlike the 2013 shutdown when Americans were not noticing any difference in life and requiring President Obama to manufacture pain in closing open-air, unguarded monuments and parks, President Trump will take no such harmful actions.

So let’s walk through briefly how this could work.

What really is a government shutdown?

A federal government shutdown happens when Congress and the president cannot agree on the 12 appropriations bills required for each federal agency. Typically, to avoid a shutdown and the public appearances of it, Congress and the president create an extension called a continuing resolution (CR). The idea is that this temporary funding mechanism can allow time for Congress and the President to reach a spending agreement.

In fact, many of the Obama years, particularly with the Democrat Congress, were done with ongoing CRs. The federal government has been operating since since Oct. 1 on two CRs.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget – a bipartisan, nonprofit organization, told Fox News: “Essential staff at top level agencies would continue working, but most federal employees whose jobs aren’t vital would likely be sent home.”

But really, based on money spent, at least 83 percent of the federal government will keep operating. That includes the military, the Depart of Justice, the FBI, the CIA, Social Security and Medicare payments, school lunch programs, food stamps (SNAP), air traffic controllers and TSA officers, the Postal Service, even national parks this time. What will be closed? The National Transportation Safety Board, part of the EPA, and those agencies that collect and report economic data are some.

So, not surprisingly, the term “government shutdown” is grossly inaccurate.

And who is hurt? All important services continue and the government employees furloughed are paid all their back-pay for the time they did not work. Basically, they get a paid vacation in addition to their normal paid vacations. Not too terrible. So virtually no one is hurt.

History of government shutdowns

Surprisingly, the federal government has shut down 18 times since 1976, when Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act…………. Interesting that in the general media hysteria over a government shutdown, this is never mentioned. Again, context is ignored to benefit an agenda.

Five times the federal government shut down when Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House. This would be the first time that Republicans controlled all three during a shutdown.

There have been three significant government shutdowns in the history of the U.S. Two of those occurred during the Clinton administration in 1995 and 1996. President Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans couldn’t agree and shut down the government for a total of 26 days. No Armageddon followed and the Republicans picked up seats in the next election after being lectured by the media how much their intransigence would cost them.

The third shutdown lasted 16 days during the Obama administration in 2013, when the House and Senate could not find agreement on extending the debt ceiling — because Obama would not sign a budget without it. Of course Republicans were blamed, but the effect of the shutdown was so unremarkable that Obama had to go to great lengths to close national open-air monuments just so Americans would notice.

The Office of Management and Budget said the 2013 shutdown cost about $2 billion — primarily the back-pay to federal employees for not working.

“The average person doesn’t really notice it,” Susan MacManus, political science professor at the University of South Florida, told WFLA in Tampa.


Shut her down

Other than the media frenzy — which is just becoming a big yawn to a lot of Americans because it is every day — where is the downside to shutting down the government other than having to pay some “non-essential” employees for not doing apparently non-essential work?

There is none. The upside is that there is the opportunity for Americans to realize that there are hundreds of thousands of federal jobs that are not important, and billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on them.

Perhaps, combined with the tax reform package and our ridiculously irresponsible level of national debt, Republicans could take these three points and find a way to explain exactly what needs to be done.

It’s obvious, right?

RELATED ARTICLE: Now That The Government Has Shut Down, Here’s What Actually “Shuts Down”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Watch the Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

In June 2013 a book titled “The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler” was published by Harvard University Press. The book was written by Ben Urwand, a Junior Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows.  Urwand in his book asserts that Hollywood actively “collaborated” with Nazi Germany, hence the title “The Collaboration.” There are some who disagreed with Urwand’s assertion such as The New Yorker’s David Denby, who reviewed Urwand’s book and wrote an article titled “How Could Harvard Have Published Ben Urwand’s ‘The Collaboration’?

What both Urwand and Denby agree upon is that Hollywood, driven by profits, censored movies to appease a tyrannical government.

Denby in his article quotes Steven Alan Carr, author of “Hollywood and Anti-Semitism: A Cultural History Up to World War II.” Carr in an email to Denby stated,

“The idea that Hollywood collaborated with the Nazis mistakes a tactic for a strategy. The fact that those in Hollywood, rightly or wrongly, saw negotiations with the Nazis as a key way to leverage keeping American films in theatres abroad seems especially important.”

Whether tactic or strategy it is clear that the largest Hollywood studios wrongly worked with Adolf Hitler’s representatives to present Germany, the Nazi Party and the Aryan race in a favorable light, regardless of the truth.

KEY TAKE AWAY: In the 1930s Hollywood was driven by profit and did whatever it takes to sell its movies, even self-censor. What drives Hollywood is pure greed!

Adolf Hitler understood the political power of the silver screen. Hitler loved Hollywood movies. Hitler understood that foreign films would have a social impact on Germans. The Nazis were racists but wanted that fact hidden. Wikipedia notes:

Hitler made references to an “Aryan Race” founding a superior type of humanity. The purest stock of Aryans according to Nazi ideology was the Nordic people of Germany, England, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

The Nazis claimed that Germanic people specifically represented a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population. The Nazis did not consider all Germans to be of the Nordic type (which predominated the north), and stated that Germany also had a large “Alpine” population (identified by, among other features, shorter height and higher incidences of darker hair and eyes).

Hitler and Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther framed this as an issue to be corrected through selective breeding for “Nordic” traits.

DW.com writes this about Urwand’s book:

The US-based Australian scholar [Urwand] writes that American film bosses and functionaries started working closely with the Germans in the early 1930s, in order to ensure that their productions would run in Germany.

According to the historian, the Americans got themselves involved in an ominous deal, agreeing to editing stipulations for Hollywood productions and making sure that films didn’t contain criticism of the Nazi regime. They allegedly rejected projects that would have brought up the persecution of Jews in Germany, writes Urwand.

It was the behavior of MGM head Louis B. Mayer that gave Urwand the idea for his book. Mayer apparently showed the German consul in Los Angeles at the time all of MGM’s films – to get his approval before they ran. If the consul didn’t agree with a particular scene – say, because it put Germany in a negative light – then it was removed from the film. Mayer’s story inspired Urwand to embark on nine years of research.

Like other American companies such as IBM or General Motors, the Hollywood studios put profit over principles in their decision to do business with the Nazis, wrote Urwand, adding that the studio bosses, many of whom were Jewish immigrants, put up with a lot to maintain ties with Germany. [Emphasis added]

Today Hollywood is back to its old tricks of self-censoring but this time politics trumps profits.

According to The Verge domestic movie theater attendance has hit a 25-year low in 2017. The Verge reported:

Movie theater attendance in the US and Canada in 2017 fell to its lowest point since at least 1992, Bloomberg reportsBox Office Mojo estimates around 1.24 billion tickets were sold, a drop off of 5.8 percent from the previous year. Even with higher ticket prices, domestic revenue also dropped 2.7 percent from last year, from $11.4 billion to $11.1 billion.

 Question: Why? Answer: Politics!

Hollywood has become overtly political. A recent example is Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris.” A Truth Politics article titled “As Hollywood Tries To Stop New Patriotic Movie, Clint Eastwood Gives Them Brutal Surprise” reports:

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google: “In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.”

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.”

Hollywood tried to limit the audience by giving the film an “R” rating. But Clint Eastwood fought back. Truth Politics noted:

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

Like Hitler, who knew that a movie is a powerful form of propaganda, Hollywood is now using movies to propagandize.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Hollywood and Congressional Democrats are on the same page when it comes to changing minds via the silver screen. Both have learned their lesson well from Nazi Germany.

The Democrats decided to shutdown the federal government on January 19th, 2018 in the name of illegal aliens. Hollywood is losing at the box office. Democrats may lose big at the ballot box in 2018.

Time will tell.

Don’t Let Liberals End Opinion Diversity Under Cover of ‘Fake News’ Campaign

The issue of fake news is very much in the news, as it were, and President Donald Trump is being compared to Stalin for his dismissal of journalists who are purveyors of it as “enemies of the American people.”

It may be good to jog our memory back to how the term “fake news” arrived among us.

Only then do we remember that it first was intended to be used as a weapon in a sustained campaign by liberals to regain their former monopoly over news delivery, and end one of the most important and hard-won victories by conservatives—the information diversity that arrived with the internet.

Disinformation, of course, has been among us since man first began to use language, sought to conceal something, and lied about it. So a very long time.

But the present use of the term fake news is of much more recent vintage, as we can see in this chart:

Internet searches for “fake news” really kicked up in early November 2016. It is to then that we can trace this Nov. 6, 2016, article by The New York Times’ media critic, Jim Rutenberg, credited with the first use of the term.

“The internet-borne forces that are eating away at print advertising are enabling a host of faux-journalistic players to pollute the democracy with dangerously fake news items,” Rutenberg wrote.

The purpose of Rutenberg’s jeremiad was to draw attention to the secular demise of mainstream newspaper outlets and decry the success of conservative outlets.

Rutenberg’s evidence was comprised of outrageous examples of conspiracy mongering by alt-right sites—content, he complained, that can “live alongside that of The Times or The Boston Globe or The Washington Post on the Facebook newsfeed and be just as well read, if not more so.”

But it is clear from his piece that his real target was opinion diversity.

“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” Rutenberg quoted The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, as asking.

We heard a very similar version in former President Barack Obama’s complaint to David Letterman this month:

One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.

We know which planet our 44th president inhabits, and which he thinks is in a galaxy far, far away.

We also know whose “basic facts” Rutenberg trusted: In his seminal 2016 column, he mentions the hard-left and equally conspiracy-driven MSNBC as a normal, mainstream network.

The loss of the previous progressive monopoly on the dissemination of news and analysis has poisoned the liberal soul since the internet came on the scene.

The left’s “fake news” campaign began, then, as an attempt to smear all legitimate conservative news purveyors, from Fox News Channel to The Weekly Standard to the Washington Examiner and, of course, The Daily Signal, that provide an alternative news selection and interpretation.

This effort to delegitimize conservative outlets went horribly wrong, of course, when Trump appropriated the term and weaponized it. I must admit that when the president started doing it, I thought it wouldn’t fly. The current brouhaha proves that I was wrong.

As a former journalist, I don’t particularly like calling newsmen “the enemies of the American people.” It is indeed a term once used by Stalin. (Though it hardly makes Trump a Stalinist, a distinction that should be reserved for those who actually massacre millions and oppress those who survive.)

My friends in the media are not enemies of the American people. But they are mostly liberal.

Ask the more existential question, “Do liberals like America?” and that’s harder to answer. Many liberals don’t hide their contempt for the U.S. (there are many, many examples; find them yourself) and many others still proffer to like an America I don’t recognize.

Which is why we should all be present in the marketplace of ideas. After gaining this beachhead, conservatives must protect it against what will be sustained attempts to dislodge them.

In 2014, I had a celebrated exchange with Darrell West and Beth Stone at Brookings Institution over their frightening call in a paper for digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter to change their algorithms in a manner that would prioritize information from liberal sources.

But West and Stone won, and social networks are now “fact-checking” their content. As my colleague Katrina Trinko points out here, this is censoring the news.

Ending opinion diversity this way is the real threat to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and what should keep those who worry about it awake at night.


Portrait of Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Fut ure: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.” Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment

Lost in the ongoing poopy-storm surrounding what President Trump may or may not have said regarding the relative sanitary conditions of certain third-world countries, is this perhaps larger question:

Why did Sen. Dick Durbin do it? Why did the Illinois Democrat, with only a passing relationship with the truth, run to the media to claim Trump called some awful third-world countries poopy-holes?

Whether Trump said it or not, and whether this is more evidence that he is racist, has been debated and analyzed ad nauseum for what feels like an eternity in this era of a new news cycle every few hours. For a possibly fictional story about the President using a bad word in a meeting, it sure is hanging on. And for good reason — the same reason Durbin sprinted to the cameras with his tale.

Democrats don’t want an immigration deal. They do not want any immigration solution short of 100 percent of what they are asking for across the board.  What do they want?

The issue. Specifically, a galvanizing issue to inflame the Latino vote. In the same way they continually stoke racial tensions (and in this case, it’s a two-fer) to gin up black voter turnout and support, they need Hispanics angry and frightened to obtain their voter turnout and support. They believe that making Republicans look intransigent against “brown” people, and forcing “dreamers” out of the country will accomplish that. Based on how the media is guaranteed to dishonestly cover such an issue, they are probably right in their calculations.

Consider: If we seriously began solving race relations and immigration issues, how could Democrats drum up 70 percent of the Latino vote and 90 percent of the black vote? If those minorities did not feel the need for Democrats to alternately protect them from Republicans and give them other Americans’ stuff, why would they need the Democrats? Electorally speaking, without those margins, Democrats could not expect any chance of winning.

If this analysis is true — and it is for Democratic leadership based on all past and current actions, including Obama’s endless race-baiting when he had a chance to lead the nation in real reconciliation — that says something truly cold and ugly about Democratic leadership. (Democratic leadership as opposed to many rank-and-file Democratic voters we may know personally who follow the sound bites and spin and actually may want the best for minorities and not just electoral leverage. They just believe the spin on Republicans because they trust the media. Not their first mistake.)

What this says is that it appears Democratic leadership would rather Americans suffer, even Americans that make up their loyal voting base, than risk losing electoral advantage. It’s not like there are not Republicans who act this way, too. Of course there are. But this is just on marching display in front of us for Democrats.

Dick Durbin either saw or made up the chance to tank the negotiations. It’s hard to see any other motive. Making Trump personally look bad could have waited until the following day, or that afternoon, as that is pretty much all the media does now.

This was a different motive than simple anti-Trumpism. Far more cold-hearted and cynical. Sorry, loyal minority Democratic voters. Your party seems to be just using and abusing you.

EDITORS NOTE: In answering the charges made against the Obama administration’s targeting and seizing of private phone records of AP reporters and employees, and intimidation of Fox News reporter James Rosen by Obama’s Justice Department, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) defended Obama’s actions by in-essence stating the Constitution is out of date in regards to journalism.  He suggested to Chris Wallace of Fox News’ that he believes certain people should not have First Amendment Rights, and then went on to say that the Constitution is out of date in 2013.  He asks if the Constitution applies to Bloggers and Twitter Users;  “Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.””

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Check out The Revolutionary Act’s Youtube Channel.

What Russian immigrants can teach us about Jewish identity

Russian Jews know from personal experience that leftist ideology leads to totalitarian dictatorship, suppression of individual freedoms, and denial of personal autonomy.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely was criticized a few months ago for opining that American Jews live “comfortable” lives and don’t know what it’s like to live under constant threat of attack, though she also acknowledged the continuing bond between them and their Israeli cousins.

While mainstream liberals took offense, they could not dispute the substance of her comments.  It seems progressive Jews are always offended when moderate, conservative, or right-wing Israelis (i.e., much of the Israeli electorate) have the temerity to chastise those whose politics threaten Israel’s safety, security, and continuity as a Jewish state.  It’s easy to criticize Israel from the comfort of North America for those who define religious and ethnic identity not by Jewish values and history, but by allegiance to a political worldview that devalues both.

Though Hotovely’s words were taken somewhat out of context, the truth is many American Jews are indeed naïve – especially those who believe Israel should conform to a political vision that characterizes her as an occupier, demeans the Jewish spirit, and belittles traditional Judaism.  To the extent her words offended those who support an agenda that undermines Israel and empowers her enemies, they were words that needed to be spoken and should be repeated often.  No longer should the mainstream blindly vouch for the religious and cultural integrity of the Jewish left, or of nontraditional clergy who find common cause with BDS advocates and Islamist front organizations.

Much of the non-Orthodox establishment seems to care more about secular political values than traditional Jewish ones, and its support for Israel is often apologetic or conditioned on her presumed acceptance of liberal ideals. Too often, progressive organizations provide forums for left-wing ideologues and unbalanced critics who disparage the Jewish State and traditional Judaism, while denying equal time to pro-Israel advocates and political conservatives.  This dynamic frequently plays out in college and universities where liberal campus leaders often show greater concern about the hypothetical risk of Islamophobia than the very real incidence of progressive anti-Semitism, and frequently condemn Israeli policies while ignoring Islamist rejectionism.

There is nothing inherently Jewish about political values that encourage assimilation and undercut Jewish observance and national integrity.

That’s why it’s refreshing to see organizations like the Russian Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Boston thriving and celebrating Jewish identity.  In some ways, the RJCF is like thelandsmanschaften associations of the early twentieth century that provided communal support to Jewish immigrants who came from the shtetls of Eastern Europe.  The RJCF’s core membership hails from the former Soviet Union, where seventy years of Jewish suffering under the yoke of Communism instilled a survival mentality and loyalty to heritage.  Instead of facilitating assimilation, the experience of Russian Jews as a persecuted minority seems to have fostered a commitment to identity, devotion to democratic ideals, and passion for the Jewish State.

The RJCF’s ardor for Israel was on full display at its recent, annual end-of-the-year Gala, where the theme was “United with Jerusalem” in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the reunification of the ancient Jewish capital.  The keynote address was delivered by retired Lt. Colonel and former U.S. Representative Allen West, and the honoree for RJCF’s Jewish Advocacy Award was Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, who was recognized for his work on behalf of Israel and the international free speech movement.

The choices of Colonel West and Rabbi Hausman reflected the RJCF’s assertive commitment to Israel and to the free speech that is so essential for protecting democratic ideals and preserving Jewish identity in America.  Though both gentlemen have been attacked for their stances on radical Islam by progressive groups ambivalent or hostile towards Israel and traditional Judaism, and despite whisperings from some corners of the community that attendance would be hampered by their participation, the Gala’s organizers were resolute in choosing them as speaker and honoree.  And this resolve was rewarded by a tremendous turnout and enthusiastic audience response when the Colonel and Rabbi spoke.

The RJCF’s President, Alex Koifman, set the tone in his opening remarks by noting how Jews from the former Soviet Union strongly identify with Jerusalem’s reunification and draw strength and inspiration from Israel’s assertion of sovereignty over her ancient capital.  He also observed how bias against Israel and hatred of Jews is on the rise globally, and that the RJCF is committed to combatting both.  Because of their unique history and experience, it seems Russian Jews are particularly sensitive to the dangers of anti-Semitic hate speech and the need to confront it proactively.

These sentiments were echoed by Colonel West, who emphasized the importance of teaching and learning Jewish history – from Torah times to the present – and of understanding that the Jews’ presence in Israel is part of an unbroken historical continuum, while Palestinian claims have no history to back them up.  Organizations like the RJCF are important because they affirm Jewish history and the symbiotic relationship between the United States and Israel, he said, noting that Russian Jews know from personal experience that leftist ideology leads to totalitarian dictatorship, suppression of individual freedoms, and denial of personal autonomy.

Colonel West also emphasized the need to strengthen the American-Israeli relationship and undo the damage caused by the failed policies of the Obama administration, which gave billions of dollars to an Iranian regime sworn to exterminating Israel and bestowed moral legitimacy on the anti-Semitic BDS movement.  It’s up to the Trump administration to acknowledge the historical legitimacy of the Jewish State and influence other governments to do the same.  “There can be no peace in the Middle East without recognition of who [the Jews] are, and until Europe and the Arab nations stop shunning Israel,” he said.  This vision is not simply good politics, said West, but represents the fulfillment of the words spoken to Avraham by G-d in Sefer Breishit (Genesis).  “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and all the families of the earth shall be blessed in you.” (Parshah Lech-Lecha, Breishit, 12:3.)

In his remarks, Rabbi Hausman emphasized the Jewish tradition of debate, discussion and intellectual inquisitiveness, and that Jews thrive in societies that cherish free speech and critical discourse.  Freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas were once hallmarks of liberal democracy, but have come under attack in recent years by those who simply cannot tolerate disagreement and dissent, he said.  Though progressives claim to be the standard bearers of liberal ideals, they have turned their backs on classical liberalism, which in earlier generations had treasured critical thought and the interplay of opposing viewpoints.  “Societies where discussion becomes impossible are susceptible to totalitarianism, and nobody knows this better than Jews from the former Soviet Union,” Rabbi Hausman said to applause from the audience, noting further that such societies “are not conducive to the safety and security of the Jewish People or the State of Israel.”

Rabbi Hausman’s remarks gave perspective as to why Hotovely’s comments rankled liberals, especially those who tolerate or enable leftist totalitarianism, progressive anti-Semitism, and Islamist excess.  She clearly unnerved those whose political ideals are fundamentally incompatible with authentic Jewish values, but who nevertheless strain to claim consistency with Jewish tradition.  In redefining their identity according to politics that contravene Jewish religious and cultural continuity, liberal “social warriors” have lost the tools necessary for Jewish survival, and have politically aligned themselves – wittingly or not – with leftists who promote assimilation and Islamists who seek to eradicate Israel.

If the RJCF’s constituency is any indication, the Russian Jewish community has no tolerance for such religious and cultural suicide, as evidenced by its strong support for Israel in terms of both dollars and personal commitment.  Russian Jewish immigrants are extremely patriotic to the US and Israel, and they see more of their children serving as lone soldiers in the IDF than does the liberal mainstream.  Indeed, many lone soldiers from this community have parents who served before them – in sharp contrast to those progressives who disparage Israel and who shamefully condemned President Trump’s formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

One gets the sense that the RJCF’s members might stop identifying as Russian after a generation or two, but will never cease being Jewish.  For them, “Russian” is the adjective that describes where they or their parents were born, but “Jew” is the noun that defines their essence.  If they were to cease identifying as Russian, they would still be Jewish because of their self-awareness and historical connectedness.  In contrast, American progressives who lose their political faith are deprived of the only thing by which they define Jewishness.  Take away their liberalism, and you take away their validation as Jews.  The irony, of course, is that there is nothing inherently Jewish about political values that encourage assimilation and undercut Jewish observance and national integrity.

And this is something that the RJCF’s members understand – as do emigres from any society in which Jews have suffered persecution.  Those who must fight to maintain their religious and cultural identity have a similar mentality to Israelis who fight not only for their own survival, but for that of the Jewish People.  They know that Jewish continuity depends on loyalty to history and tradition, which is a lesson that many American Jews have either forgotten or never learned in the first place.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.