ActRight

Jim Himes, Connecticut congressman explains to Tucker Carlson why democrats are obstruction Donald Trump. Twitter: https://twitter.com/VeryDicey Website: htt...

‘Do you think Islam needs reform?” Wouldn’t it be interesting, wouldn’t it get us to the crux of the immigration debate, if our best news anchors — I’m looking at you, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier — would put that question to every major politician in Washington? Instead, the press is asking not just the wrong question but one that utterly misses the point, namely: “How many terrorist attacks have been committed by immigrants from this handful of Muslim-majority countries?” It is the same wrong question posed by the imperious federal judge in Seattle who suspended President Trump’s temporary travel ban on aliens from those countries — seven of them. It is the same wrong question that animated the incorrigible Ninth Circuit appeals court in upholding this suspension — and intimating along the way that Trump, and by implication all who fear for the future of our country, are anti-Muslim bigots crusading against religious liberty (the Ninth Circuit being notoriously selective when it comes to protecting religious traditions). Does the Trump administration realize it’s the wrong question? I wonder. Instead of attacking the question’s premise, the administration undertakes to answer it. It seems not to grasp that the security argument is not advanced, much less won, by compiling a list of terrorist plots. Let’s try this again. Islam does need reform. This is critical to our national security for two reasons that bear directly on the question of which aliens should, and which should not, be allowed into our country. First, reform is essential because the broader Islamic religion includes a significant subset of Muslims who adhere to an anti-American totalitarian political ideology that demands implementation of sharia — Islamic law. This ideology and the repressive legal code on which it rests are not religion. We are not talking about the undeniably theological tenets of Islam (e.g., the oneness of Allah, the acceptance of Mohamed as the final prophet, and the Koran as Allah’s revelation). We are talking about a framework for the political organization of the state, and about the implementation of a legal corpus that is blatantly discriminatory, hostile to liberty, and — in its prescriptions of crime and punishment — cruel. Islam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism (or, if you prefer, “radical Islam”), is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. To fashion an immigration policy that serves our vital national security interests without violating our commitment to religious liberty, we must be able to exclude sharia supremacists while admitting Muslims who reject sharia supremacism and would be loyal to the Constitution. Islam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism, is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. Second, sharia supremacists are acting on a “voluntary apartheid” strategy of gradual conquest. You needn’t take my word for it. Influential sharia supremacists encourage Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa to integrate into Western societies without assimilating Western culture. The renowned Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who vows that “Islam will conquer Europe, conquer America,” urges Muslim migrants to demand the right to live in accordance with sharia. Turkey’s sharia-supremacist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, admonishes that pressuring Muslims to assimilate is “a crime against humanity.” The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim governments that purports to speak as a quasi-caliphate, promulgated its “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” in 1990 — precisely because what the United Nations in 1948 presumptuously called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is neither “universal” nor suitable to a sharia culture. Voluntary apartheid does not require insinuating terrorists into migrant populations. It requires insinuating assimilation-resistant migrant populations into Western countries. Those populations form sharia-supremacist enclaves, which (a) demand the autonomy to conduct their affairs under Islamic law as a challenge to the sovereign authority of the host country, and (b) become safe havens for incitement, radicalization, paramilitary training, fundraising, and jihadist conspiracy — the prerequisites for terrorism. The problem is not that our “See No Islam” policies may be letting some small percentage of trained terrorists into the country (although that is certainly a problem). The main problem is that we are creating the conditions under which anti-American enclaves can take root, the Constitution can be undermined, and today’s young Muslim teenager becomes tomorrow’s radicalized jihadist. RELATED: Weeding Out Terrorist Immigrants Isn’t Enough We cannot grapple with these challenges if we are intimidated into silence by such questions as whether a “Muslim ban” is being proposed; whether heightened scrutiny would be tantamount to a “religion test”; how many refugees or aliens from this or that Muslim-majority country have been charged with terrorism crimes; whether Muslims would be disproportionately affected by immigration exclusions; and whether a ban on a few Muslim-majority countries can be justified if most Muslim-majority countries are exempted. Such questions are designed to make vetting Muslims seem inconceivable. They are meant to exhaust you into conceding: “If we have to fret so mightily about the potential impact of immigration laws against Muslims, how could we possibly contemplate examining Muslims directly to sort out sharia supremacists from pro-American Muslims?” You are to pretend that there is no obvious subset of Muslims who are hostile to our country. You are to assume that screening for hostile Muslims would be illegal because to ask about Islam would offend religious liberty — but because you know there are hostile Muslims, you silently hope the authorities have figured out some sneaky, roundabout way to screen for them without appearing to screen for them. Enough of that. We need to move beyond the “are we targeting Muslims” nonsense and get to the critical question: How do we embrace our Islamic friends while excluding our sharia-supremacist enemies? Here’s a suggestion: Bring our Muslim friends, loud and proud, into the process. It is the reform Muslims who tell us that Islam can separate sharia from spiritual life and that pro-Western Muslims do exactly that. The only people who may have more interest than we do in Islamic reform are Islamic reformers: courageous Muslims who embrace American constitutional principles of liberty and equality. And at great risk to themselves: Under the supremacist view of sharia, those who depart from Islamic-law principles set in stone a millennium ago are apostates, subject to the penalty of death. You’re not supposed to question that, though, because it’s, you know, “religion.” How about we stop consulting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia supremacists who tell us Islam is just fine as is, even as its aggressions mount? How about we bring the reformers very publicly into the vetting process, to help the administration tell the good guys from the bad guys? To help the administration show that it is not Muslims but anti-American totalitarians that we seek to exclude. It is the reform Muslims who tell us that Islam can separate sharia from spiritual life and that pro-Western Muslims do exactly that. It is the sharia supremacists who are outraged by the very suggestion that reform is possible, let alone necessary. If we continue taking our cues from the latter, it means that their noxious political ideology is part and parcel of Islam, and therefore that screening to keep that ideology out of our country is a violation of First Amendment religious liberty. In other words, if you’re unwilling to say that Islam needs reform, then we can’t vet . . . and we are doomed. On the other hand, if Islam does need reform, isn’t it imperative that we identify the Muslims who resist reform — the sharia supremacists who seek not to join but to radically change our free, constitutional society? — Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Sean Spicer fielded questions from journalists regarding Michael Flynn's surprising resignation and how President Donald Trump handled the situation. Twitter...

The city of Palm Springs, CA has a temporary solution in place, but they need to do much more to protect women.

Representative Mo Brooks, a Republican from the 5th Congressional District in Alabama, has filed a one-sentence bill to completely repeal Obamacare. The bill, titled the

The painting by Petrina Ryan-Kleid has launched 1,000 conspiracy theories. But the artist says she had no idea Epstein owned it.

Perhaps one reason why President Joe Biden wants to get tough on guns is so nothing happens…

I would love to say that the video footage, internal Facebook documents, and testimonials featured in Project Veritas’s latest undercover investigation of the Big Tech giant were “shocking” or “unprecedented,”…

The Trump administration has rolled out a new questionnaire for U.S. visa applicants worldwide that asks for social media handles for the last five years and biographical information going back 15 years.

A generation of media figures are cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump.

The hot mic strikes again. This time two senators — one a moderate Republican, Susan Collins (ME), the other a faithful Democrat, Jack Reed (RI) — were caught questioning not only President Trump's understanding of how the government works, but his sanity.

Noreen Stainwright, from Hampshire, had to plunder her savings to have her gall bladder removed at a private hospital in Salisbury after facing a seven-month wait for NHS surgery.

She left out a few things!

We conservatives have spent far too long playing by the old rules when liberals have completely changed the game. There was a time when laws meant what they said, when individual rights were important, when the government did not make it its business to oppress the executives ideological opponents, and when principles mattered. But that time has passed.

The fate of the Navy commanding officer who fired his personal handgun at an armed assailant on July 16 in Chattanooga, Tenn., remains undecided.

Is this real life?

>FOX NEWSSouth Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Sunday that Hillary Clinton will indeed testify Oct. 22 about her activities as secretary of state at the time of the Benghazi attacks

"Multiculturalism and its impact on democratic society" panel from "The Collapse Of Europe?" Conference. Panel Moderator is Evan Sayet. Panelists are Ibn War...

Built in a matter of weeks by soldiers, prison laborers and cadres of the unemployed, a vast new wall along Balkan frontiers is a monument to the ruthless efficiency with which Prime Minister Viktor Orban has mobilized Hungary against migrants.

Serial groper and overall pervert, Al Franken gave his last speech from the Senate floor Wednesday and took a shot at President Trump’s tax bill. Al Franken resigned from his Senate seat in disgrace after multiple women came forward accusing him of sexual assault. His last day in office is January 2nd, 2018. Model and …

On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal — Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser — sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the

The Wall Street Journal: Hillary Clinton Calls NRA as Stubborn as ‘Iranians’ or ‘Communists’  Ratcheting up her attack on the nation’s gun lobbyists, Hillary Clinton on Wednesday said the National Rifle Association is as stubborn in it

I spend a lot of time talking and writing about the minimum wage. I do so because it sears my economist's soul to encounter a ...

@ByKristenMClark @PatriciaMazzei WINTER PARK -- Jeb Bush told reporters in Orlando on Monday that the Republican National Committee should still hold a planned primary debate with Miami-based Spanish-language broadcaster Telemundo.

The White House has pledged more than $100 million toward the economic prosperity of girls and women of color. Announced at a summit Friday, President Obama’s investment echoes his 2014 “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative that poured $200 million into charities and private institutions to support young men of color. Less well known is that women face similar risks and discrepancies.