ActRight

Carmen Yulín Cruz, the Mayor of San Juan appeared was interviewed today by Ali Velshi on MSNBC Live to discuss President Donald Trump‘s remarks on the death toll in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria. The

The lawsuit filed by coalition of civil rights advocates requests the state to put forth a sweeping desegregation plan.

By Alex Dobuzinskis and Mica Rosenberg LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled President Donald Trump's administration must allow immigrants with initial clearance for legal residency to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, despite an executive

On Tuesday, after a month of quasi-hibernation, Hillary Clinton emerged from the political wilderness to give her first video address since the inauguration of her always-colorful nemesis, Donald Trump. It was a golden opportunity to show grace, introspection, and clarity. But since Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, she decided to go ahead and alienate half of the human race instead. Addressing the 2017 MAKERS conference, where a bunch of mostly well-off, left-leaning ladies get together in California to celebrate the “trailblazing women of today and tomorrow,” Clinton delivered the usual hazy feminist boilerplate. But amid the vague calls for women to “dare greatly” and “lead boldly” and break glass ceilings, there was also this doozy of a line: “Despite all the challenges we face,” Clinton said, “I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female.” Ah, there it is: the old “future is female” line, back with a vengeance in 2017. It was first trotted out in 1975, according to the New York Times, on a T-shirt designed at a feminist bookstore in New York City. In 2015, the shirt made a comeback, worn by celebrities and devout feminists alike, thanks to a Los Angeles graphic-design studio that is, at least according to the Times, “the kind of place where one can buy clip-on Susan Sontag white streaks for $25 and attend a workshop called ‘Devotions: Self-Care for Modern Witches.’” “It’s thrilling to see people embrace something that came out of the ’70s lesbian separatist moment,” Rachel Berks, who cooked up the revitalized shirts, told the Times. “The shirt is about a reaction to a misogynist and patriarchal culture that affects a lot of people. People are re-contextualizing it: trans women, men, moms who have sons.” Interesting! Personally, as a mom who has sons, I’m exhausted by this particular brand of malarkey. What does “the future is female” even mean? Is one half of the human race going into hiding? Fading into irrelevance? Will they be rocketing off to outer space, hunched inside Tesla-designed capsules, never to be seen or heard from again? RELATED: Mrs. Clinton Is Not the Future Imagine, if you will, an audience of little boys — let’s pretend they’re second- and third-graders — forced to sit in an auditorium and listen to Hillary Clinton’s short speech. They swing their legs. They fidget a bit. “The future is female,” Clinton declares, beamed in on a giant screen. What are they supposed to think, other than that girls matter more than they do? Fortunately, if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, Clinton isn’t exactly destined to live as a leading trend-setter and guru for America’s young men. Unfortunately, we don’t need to force America’s cohort of young males into goofy feminist conference rooms for them to hear her message. All they need is a brief dip into our culture at large. What does “the future is female” even mean? Is one half of the human race going into hiding? Fading into irrelevance? Take Disney’s “Dream Big, Princess” campaign, which informs cartoon viewers that girls can and should do anything they want in life — Astronaut! President! Celebrity chef! — while boys merit no mention at all. Other ad campaigns take a darker note, suggesting that men and women are constantly pitted against each other in the demolition derby of life, rather than partners who work together. At this year’s Super Bowl, Audi ran a sad-sack advertisement bemoaning the oppression of women, which cited the debunked myth of a large and sinister gender-based “pay gap.” The lesson was clear: Men are the bad guys. The irony of Clinton’s gender-centric “future is female” declaration thickens when you remember that the political Left has spent the past few years rabidly insisting that gender is fluid and that gender identities can shift. Well, whatever. Consistency be darned: At this point in history, the Left seems to have one gear, and that gear is identity politics. There’s a final, sadder subtext to the whole “future is female” fiasco: It’s steeped in a movement that relentlessly champions on-demand abortion, even as unborn girls are targeted for sex-selective abortion all over the world. It’s a movement that ignores and alienates pro-life women, while celebrating people such as Cecile Richards, the CEO of Planned Parenthood. Unsurprisingly, Richards is a featured speaker at this year’s MAKERS conference. In 2015, she blithely explained her personal abortion to Katie Couric, noting that she and her husband, married and financially sound, had simply decided that they had enough kids. “It wasn’t a difficult decision,” she said. Really? Well. Wow. We’ll never know whether that baby was female; its future was brought to an abrupt end. — Heather Wilhelm is a National Review columnist and a senior contributor to the Federalist.

The Google Revolutionary Brigade has reportedly offed an anonymous employee who had the temerity to pen a 10-page memorandum suggesting that Google’s diversity policies were based on bad science and worse political bias.

Back during the government shutdown of 2013, Carly Fiorina told CNN's The Lead that she felt badly for Boehner and blamed the shutdown on Ted Cruz and Obama: Everybody could see this train wreck co...

Germany's political stability and economic sway have until recently earned Chancellor Angela Merkel unprecedented global influence and power.

An investigation into official flight records of financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” are once again dragging former President Bill Clinton into the national spotlight.

There are enough active investigations of Hillary Clinton and her inner circle to merit a list of the most important ones.

Upload and Share

The death of Fidel Castro reminds us that the respectable press has been peddling “fake news” about Cuba & Castro for 60 years.

Foreign jihadists fleeing from Isil's shrinking caliphate are “hiding in plain sight” in migrant flows, the head of the Armed Forces has warned.

Where are the tears for Aleppo’s Christians and Jews?

The security breach, in which hackers gained access to dozens of computers, has also been the target of a probe by a congressional committee.

Trump claims that his policies of trade restrictions, immigration restrictions, tax cuts, and higher federal government spending will create 25 million new jobs and will nearly double the current economic growth rate over the next decade. [...] several of Trump’s policies provide nothing more than a false sense of hope, particularly to those workers who are the least skilled, and who are the most vulnerable to economic dislocations arising from globalization and technological change. The United States benefits enormously from international trade, which provides not only a much wider range of goods for Americans to purchase, but also benefits the average American household by about $10,000 per year from lower prices. [...] U.S. trade restrictions would not make our industries more competitive. The Commerce Department estimates that three jobs are lost in the candy industry alone for every sugar job that is “saved” by protection. [...] hiking U.S. tariffs will raise the cost of the raw and intermediate imported goods that comprise our complex international supply chain. [...] Trump has not offered any proposal to deal with the looming imbalances of Social Security. Trump’s immigration plans make his goal of creating 25 million jobs virtually unattainable. Because of the accelerating retirement of workers from the Baby Boom generation, economists broadly agree that there is almost no chance the U.S. can create 25 million jobs in the next 10 years without considerable immigration.

'Interest in our club is now at an all-time high.'

The Ninth Circuit’s decision against President Trump’s immigration order is worse than wrong. It is dangerous. To review, Trump issued an executive order blocking entry by refugees and aliens from seven Muslim-majority countries. The travel restriction is to be short-lived: a period of months while better vetting procedures are developed. The administration, moreover, did not pluck the seven countries from its allegedly anti-Muslim imagination. They were cited in a statute enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama, based on the richly supported conclusion that these countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan — are riven by anti-American jihadism, besides having governments that are either non-functional or implacably hostile to the U.S., rendering any efforts to screen their citizens uniquely difficult. A federal judge in Seattle, James Robart, issued a temporary restraining order against the travel ban at the behest of two states, Washington and Minnesota, run by Democratic governors. Now, the Ninth Circuit has upheld this single, unelected jurist’s usurpation of the power to make American national-security policy. According to the three-judge panel, even illegal aliens, to say nothing of aliens holding non-immigrant visas or permanent-resident status, have due-process rights against government actions to protect Americans from foreign threats. Therefore, the president and Congress (i.e., the branches of government constitutionally responsible for national security) may not take such actions unless and until the judiciary (the branch with no such responsibility) has approved those actions. That aliens are not citizens and have no constitutional right to come to the United States is apparently superseded by their newfangled “right” to be welcomed into the United States courts. And even if they are not here already, even if they remain in the far reaches of the globe, this alien “right” may be asserted by state governments. The states’ interest in having foreign students and scholars at their public universities, we are told, outweighs the public’s interest in excluding aliens who may be terrorists, law-breakers, public charges, or hostile to our Constitution and culture. The unanimous ruling is the type of lunacy with which the Ninth Circuit has become synonymous. It is also the inevitable result of a turn-of-the-century judicial power grab in the realm of national security. Writing for the Supreme Court in 1948 (in Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman), Justice Robert Jackson — FDR’s former attorney general and the chief prosecutor at Nuremburg — explained that decisions involving foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are “political, not judicial” in nature. Thus, they are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. It is bygone wisdom. The modern judiciary, and the modern Left whose water it carries, holds that no aspect of governance evades supervision by unelected federal judges. The full flower of this new thinking was revealed in Boumediene v. Bush, the 2008 Supreme Court decision on which the Ninth Circuit centrally relies. Boumediene radically altered the separation-of-powers doctrine on which our Constitution is founded. For the preceding two-plus centuries, the doctrine meant that each branch of the central government respected the Constitution’s delegations of supreme authority over different subject matters to its peer branches: the power of the political branches to conduct foreign relations, repel foreign invasions, and prescribe the conditions under which aliens may be admitted to and remain in the United States was every bit as plenary as the judiciary’s power to decide a breach-of-contract claim or issue a search warrant. With this understanding of the judiciary’s lack of power and institutional competence in national-security matters, the Congress enacted the 1952 law on which President Trump expressly relied. This provision, now codified at Section 1182(f) of federal immigration law, authorizes the president “by proclamation” to exclude classes of aliens whose admission would “in his judgment” — meaning: not subject to the judiciary’s judgment — be detrimental to the United States. Under the Constitution’s conception of separation of powers, this is the pinnacle of lawful executive power: an area in which (a) the president has a reservoir of his own foreign-affairs authority; (b) the Congress, responsible for prescribing the terms under which aliens may be admitted, has vested the president with maximum statutory authority; and (c) there is no legitimate judicial oversight role. Alas, Boumediene turned separation of powers on its head. Writing for himself and the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced that, henceforth, the legitimacy of presidential or congressional power depends not on the Constitution but on the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution. Translation: There is no subject matter on which judges do not have the last word. This radical new theory led to Boumediene’s radical conclusion: Alien enemy combatants — foreigners whose only contact with the United States is to levy war against her — somehow have a constitutional right to challenge in federal court the commander-in-chief’s congressionally endorsed decision to detain them in wartime. A more restrained court would limit Boumediene to its sui generis facts. Not the Ninth Circuit. For the California-based appellate court, Boumediene paved the way for an even haughtier decree that, in a time of profound national-security threat, the president — despite a sweeping authorization from Congress — is powerless to exclude aliens from the United States absent judicial imprimatur. Because the travel ban was announced without warning on a Friday, the court was offended by the Trump administration’s haphazard implementation of the executive order. It led to chaos at the nation’s airports as aliens with lawful visas were denied entry. The judges took particular umbrage at the administration’s reckless application of the exclusion, at least initially, to lawful permanent-resident aliens — essentially, green-card holders who make America their home, are already subjected to thorough screening, and are considered “U.S. persons” for most legal purposes. Plainly, the panel was hardwired to rule against the administration. Nevertheless, the poor implementation is an issue entirely separate from what ought to have been the president’s indisputable legal authority to impose temporary restrictions on non-Americans for the purpose of improving vetting. And even on the matter of implementation, the Ninth Circuit churlishly refused to credit the administration with relenting on the exclusion of green-card holders. In the Ninth Circuit’s world, there’s no problem with a single lawyer in a robe imposing his national-security preferences on the entire country, but a directive by the White House counsel is insufficient to instruct executive enforcement agencies that the president has decided to exempt lawful permanent residents from his own order. Plainly, the panel was hardwired to rule against the administration. This is further evidenced by its overwrought intimation that because candidate Trump spoke on the campaign trail of implementing a “Muslim ban,” the order by President Trump, which manifestly is not a Muslim ban, might nevertheless be intended as one. The panel also twists a Supreme Court precedent, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), to reach its conclusion. In fact, Zadvydas explicitly recognizes the government’s power to exclude deportable aliens and detain them until a country willing to take them is found. The caveat it imposed, though ill-conceived, was extremely narrow: The judiciary could concoct a due-process limit on the length of detention. Saliently, the Zadvydas Court took pains to exempt its ruling from cases raising national-security concerns. Even so, Justice Kennedy, in dissent, ripped the majority for “arrogating to the Judicial branch” foreign-policy powers the Constitution commits to the political branches. Such valid criticism was enough to induce Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, to stress that the High Court was neither questioning “the political branches’ authority to control entry into the United States” nor considering “terrorism or other special circumstances where special arguments might be made for forms of preventive detention and for heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with respect to national security.” The political branches’ plenary authority to control alien entry into the United States, and the heightened deference owed by courts to the national-security judgments of the political branches, are precisely at stake in the matter of President Trump’s executive order. As the case inevitably heads to the Supreme Court, is it too much to hope, even in a post-Boumediene world, that the justices will remember their protestations of modesty? Or are we all living in the Ninth Circuit now?

Ten days after being attacked by his Democrat neighbor, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) now says he is having problems breathing from the six-broken ribs and damaged lung he received during the attack.

A driver plowed a vehicle into five people in San Francisco on Wednesday, killing one and critically injuring others before fleeing the scene, police...

Tim Pearce, DCNF Filings for unemployment benefits in the U.S. last week fell to the lowest number in nearly five decades, further evidence of a tight labor market and expanding economy. Roughly 203,000 people filed to receive unemployment welfare last week. In the week ending on Dec. 6, 1969, 202,000 people made an initial claim for unemployment, ?

Oh, that's fantastic! The MSNBC anchor couldn't believe it! North Carolina Republican Party Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse went on MSNBC to talk about the vote in North Carolina. And he brought a prop with him: "Hillary Clinton Inauguration Jewelry" Watch (begin at 1:15): From the video:...

Rachel Dolezal has been disinvited from a speaking event at a Martin Luther King Jr. festival.

On Friday, Donald J. Trump became President of the United States. His inaugural address was pure Trump: a populist brew of government interventionism, patriotic rhetoric, law and order toughness, protectionist economics, and isolationist foreign policy. It was politically brilliant, and it had little to do with conservatism. Trump is Trump.

Utah could have runoff elections — if a primary election occurs with four or more candidates and no one achieves a plurality of at least 35 percent. Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, introduced SB114 seeking to ...