ActRight

President Donald Trump appeared to equate US actions with the authoritarian regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin in a Fox News interview to air Sunday.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming.

A Muslim student at a liberal arts college in Wisconsin has been arrested for spray painting reprehensible anti-Muslim messages on his own dorm room door and then filing a report claiming that he was

In just a matter of days — perhaps next Monday — a decision will be made in Washington affecting the futures of millions of children in low-income communities, and in the very troubled area of race relations in America. An opportunity has arisen — belatedly — that may not come again in this ?

Bureaucrats Attempting to Sabotage Trump with Leaks

Navy SEAL Raid in Yemen Spotlights Issue of Female Terrorists Amid Trump’s Temporary Refugee Halt

    In history, there has been both diplomacy and war. At times, diplomacy saves the world and other times it provides false hope we’ve averted chaos. War can be successful in defeating an enemy, in other times it can be a demoralizing failure. The various events in history teach us there is a time and place for fighting and the same for talking. In modern politics, the same can be said. In recent years, war has escalated. In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attack of September 11th, the United States has become a global leader in a war against terrorism. While presented as a noble quest against evil, it is actually a complicated web of global politics. Liberals opposed war under former President George W. Bush. While many Democratic politicians initially bought the anti-Iraqi propaganda and supported the invasion, many grassroots liberals were skeptical from the beginning. Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but was he worth going to war for. Furthermore, would destabilization of the?

Kelly issued a waiver on Jan. 29 that allowed permanent residents, or green-card holders, to be allowed back into the country.

Summary of H.R.861 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

A major newspaper demands Patriots' quarterback Tom Brady answer for his support of President Trump.

On Thursday, San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, asked what  Black History Month meant to him, stated that racism against blacks was “systemic,” adding, “If you were born white, you automatically have a monstrous advantage educationally, economically, culturally and within the society offered his view on American society.” Popovich spoke before his Spurs played the Philadelphia 76ers, and pontificated that racism was America’s “national sin.”

Our immigration policy should not be a hostage crisis.

Beneath every sewer there is yet another gutter to stoop to. - Hitch, on George Galloway Subscribe for more! Like & Share! Thanks for Watching! Milo Yiannopo...

155shares Many parents have no idea what is happening to our young adults (especially our young men) on college campuses today. Victims are being turned away, the innocent are being falsely accused, and families are being destroyed. At the heart of the problem is a legal system that has created broad definitions, weakened due process, and removed the presumption of innocence. It all began 2011, when, in an effort to protect women’s right to learn without fear of harassment or discrimination, President Obama’s Department of Education sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter seeking tougher action against sexual violence. The department began pressing colleges to more aggressively police sexual assaults and also threatened to take away Title IX funding from schools that failed to comply. Title IX is a law enacted in 1972 that prohibits any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance from denying benefits to or discriminating against someone based on their sex. As a result, well-meaning campus administrators responded by erasing due-process protections for suspected offenders. They also changed the definition of sexual assault, created Kangaroo courts on campus, and scaled back on protections for the accused. PolitiChicks recently interviewed Attorney Cynthia Garrett, the Co-President of Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE), and Board President of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). Both groups champion fairness in campus sexual misconduct cases. Garrett described the devastating impact that the 2011 ?Dear College? policy has had on young men who have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct: ?It has caused devastation to many of these young men. They often get expelled from the university where they are attending and have to transfer to another school. Many other schools, especially decent schools, won?t even accept them. Many experience humiliation and job loss. Many of these young men become very depressed and even suicidal.? One example of this ?gender injustice? is at Colorado State University at Pueblo where a supposed rapist was punished even though the ?victim? also said that she was not raped and that their sexual encounter was consensual. CSU student Grant Neal filed a federal lawsuit against the university and the U.S. Department of Education claiming sexual discrimination after he was sanctioned for a sexual act that he and his girlfriend insist was consensual sex. Neal claimed in the federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver that the reason his civil rights were violated and that he was punished only because of stereotypes about male athletes. According to the Denver Post: ?Neal claims he had consensual sex on Oct. 25 with a woman at the school he identifies as Jane Doe. But a peer of Jane Doe’s in the Athletic Training Program reported the encounter as rape to CSU faculty after seeing a hickey on her neck, says the 90-page lawsuit filed by Denver attorney Michael Mirabella and New York City attorneys Andrew Miltenberg, Tara Davis and Jeffrey Berkowitz. The lawsuit points out that the peer was not an eye witness to the sexual encounter and did not hear about it from either Neal or the woman. DeLuna notified Neal on Dec. 18 that he had been found responsible for “sexual misconduct” in violation of the university’s code of conduct. His “unwarranted and severe” penalty was suspension for the remainder of Jane Doe’s enrollment at the college, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit says the defendants failed to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, failed to hold a hearing on the charges against Neal and failed to provide him with proper notice of the charges.? Neal lost his football and wrestling scholarships, which damaged his future education, career, reputation and athletic prospects. The lawsuit gives graphic details about several sexual encounters between Neal and Jane Doe. When later asked about the events, Jane Doe made it clear their relationship was consensual, the lawsuit said. Jane Doe was quoted in the lawsuit as telling a school official: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy,”  “He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Cynthia Garrett told PolitiChicks: ? These cases are more common than many people realize. After meeting someone who personally experienced this type of ?gender injustice,?  I felt I had to do something to help.? She also stated: ?What we represent is not a popular issue, we know that, but there are so many young men whose lives have been destroyed by these allegations? As a female lawyer, I also considered myself a feminist, as in “equal pay for equal work”  kind of feminism. But this new brand of female empowerment has led to job loss, humiliation, expulsion, and even sometimes suicide of men in college who were falsely accused and were stripped of their due process rights.?  Garrett also encourages our readers to contact FACE and/or SAVE if they (or somebody they know) experience this type of ?gender injustice? on a college campus. FACE (Families Advocating for Campus Equality) is a non-profit organization founded in 2013 by three mothers of sons who were falsely accused of sexual misconduct at their respective colleges. These mothers hail from different parts of the country and although their sons attended, variously, a large state school, a Big Ten university, and a small liberal arts college, their nightmare experience was remarkably similar. As a result, they established FACE to focus on promoting and insuring fairness and to seek justice for families and students caught up in the timely and devastating issue of sexual misconduct on college campuses. The mission of FACE is to advocate for equal treatment and due process for those affected by sexual misconduct allegations on campus and to support those students and their families through outreach and education. Garrett also told PolitiChicks: ?FACE is such a wonderful support group for these families and these young men because they oftentimes feel very humiliated, ashamed, and alone.? SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments)  is another organization that works on evidence-based solutions to end sexual assault and domestic violence. SAVE ?

Fox News previewed a clip of Bill O'Reilly's pre-Super Bowl interview with Donald Trump, where the president was asked about his rosy relationship with Russian

± Become a Patreon of this show so I can actually do this full-time - https://www.patreon.com/mgtowplaya ± Get high-quality MGTOW clothes & merch designed by...

Students At UC Berkeley Support Man Waving ISIS Flag Students at the UC Berkeley campus set the bar for outrageous ...

Journalists can't seem to get their stories straight in the opening weeks of the Trump administration, whether in tweets or in articles where falsehoods have been spread almost daily. The mistakes

In Palestine, we could so easily have been treated as the enemy, but we were welcomed like family.

‘What happened to the honeymoon?” Charles Krauthammer asked last month. The opposition has long granted presidents time to form their administrations, to announce their signature initiatives. Donald Trump’s honeymoon lasted all of 10 days — from his surprise November 8 election to the rude treatment of his vice president at a performance of Hamilton on November 18. After that, divorce. The same forces that opposed Trump during the Republican primary and general election are trying to break his presidency before it is a month old. At issue is the philosophy of nation-state populism that drove his insurgent campaign. It is so at variance with the ideologies of conservatism and liberalism predominant in the capital that Washington is experiencing something like an allergic reaction. Nation-state populism diverges from Beltway conservatism on trade, immigration, entitlements, and infrastructure, and from liberalism on sovereignty, nationalism, identity politics, and political correctness. Its combative style and heightened rhetoric offend the sensibilities of career-minded Washingtonians of both parties, who are schooled in deference, diplomacy, being nice to teacher, and the ancient arts of CYA. The message this establishment is sending to Trump? Conform or be destroyed. The outrage at the president’s executive order on refugees and travel was a sample of what is coming. Trump is used to fighting the media and campaign opponents, but he has little experience with the professional and supposedly nonpartisan bureaucracy. That is why his firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates was so important. She ordered her department not to defend an executive order that had been cleared by the White House counsel and her own Office of Legal Counsel. For Trump to have delayed or done nothing would have been an invitation to further subversion. He let Yates go within hours. The blasé manner in which the media describes opposition to Trump from within the bureaucracy is stunning. “Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump,” read one Politico headline. “An anti-Trump resistance movement is growing within the U.S. government,” says Vanity Fair. “Federal workers are in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives,” reports the Washington Post. No one who professes support for democracy and the rule of law can read these words without feeling alarmed. The civil service exists to support the chief executive — not the other way around. And yet, when White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that career officials who disagree with White House policy are free to resign, the collective response in Washington was outrage — at Spicer! Not only are there two Americas. There are two governments: one elected and one not, one that alternates between Republicans and Democrats and one that remains, decade after decade, stubbornly liberal, contemptuous of Congress, and resistant to change. It is this second government and its allies in the media and the Democratic party that are after President Trump, that want him driven from office before his term is complete. You think I exaggerate. But consider this: When a former Defense official who teaches at Georgetown Law School takes to Foreign Policy to propose “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020,” and when one of those ways is “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders,” we are in unknown and extremely unsettling territory. Congress is doing its best to live up to the public’s dismal opinion of it. Democrats on Capitol Hill are behaving erratically, hysterically, boycotting committee meetings to approve Cabinet officials, threatening to filibuster a qualified and highly regarded Supreme Court pick because Mitch McConnell won a wager with President Obama, and saying they will impeach President Trump over policy differences. The Republicans on Capitol Hill seem as disoriented by Trump’s victory as the Democrats. Congress has been in session for a month. What, besides repealing a mining regulation, has it done? Why is Mitch McConnell not playing hardball with Chuck Schumer on executive branch appointments and Judge Gorsuch? I know, I know: “Things take time.” But time is the enemy. This is something Democrats and other members of the self-described “resistance” understand but Republicans do not. Or perhaps the Republicans understand all too well, and want inertia and entropy to bring us a less populist and more conventionally Republican Trump. The doofuses. So unlikely did the election of Donald Trump seem to Washington and its denizens that the reality of it still has not sunk in. All of the city’s worst traits — the self-regard, the group think, the obsessions with trivia, the worship of credentials, the virtue signaling, the imperiousness, the ignorance of perspectives and people from outside major metropolitan centers and college towns — not only persist. They have been magnified with Trump’s arrival. There is so much negative energy coursing through the city that circuits are overloaded. That the president still draws support from the coalition that brought him to office, that a fair number of people see his policies as commonsensical, seems not to affect any of Trump’s critics in the least. They will press on until Trump behaves like they want him to behave. Which means the war between the president and the Washington establishment may last a very, very long time. — Matthew Continetti is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, where this column first appeared. © 2017 All rights reserved 

He's the pretty, monstrous face of the alt-right.

A machete-wielding man believed to be visiting from Dubai attacked soldiers near Paris's Louvre museum while shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ before being shot and detained, French officials said, unnerving a country that has been repeatedly targeted by terrorist attacks.

By the end of his second week in office, President Donald Trump has discovered it is actually possible for him to do something that garners applause from the mainstream media. Though Democrats seem more interested in futile gestures of “resistance” to his government than in normal opposition, all Trump had to do to gain a modicum of respect from the New York Times and other denizens of the liberal echo chamber was to preserve rather than reject the policies of his predecessor. Or at least that was how the Times and the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC perceived the new administration’s statements about Israel, Iran, and Russia this week. In reality, the claim that, as the front-page headline in Friday’s Times put it, “Trump Reverts to Pillars of Obama Foreign Policy,” is actually dead wrong when applied to the Middle East. The Times story treated administration statements about Israeli settlements, sanctions against Iran, and Russian aggression against Ukraine as proof that Trump was backing away from efforts to reverse President Obama’s policies. The jury is still out on what direction the administration will take toward Russia, though this week’s statements from U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley signaled the administration’s continued opposition to Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine, which should give hope to those who believe the president’s crush on Vladimir Putin needs to be nipped in the bud. With respect to the Middle East, however, the effort to interpret administration statements as an embrace of Obama’s policies — namely his unprecedented pressure on Israel and his desire for détente with Iran — are simply false. The argument that Trump is embracing Obama’s approach centers on one statement from White House press secretary Sean Spicer: While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful. That can be reasonably interpreted as opposing the creation of new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But its first clause is a complete and total rejection of the repeated assertions of both Obama and former secretary of state John Kerry that settlements are the primary obstacle in the way of a peace deal. Spicer’s words are actually a declaration that Trump is embracing the terms of President George W. Bush’s 2004 letter to the Israeli government, in which Bush said that changes on the ground since 1967 would have to be taken into account in any peace agreement. In practice, Bush made it clear that meant Israel would keep parts of Eastern Jerusalem as well as the major settlement blocs erected near the 1967 lines, where more than 80 percent of West Bank settlers live. Just as important, he signaled that new construction in those areas would not be considered an issue by the United States. Bush’s position was explicitly rejected by Obama, who consistently blamed Israel for the failure of his efforts to broker peace no matter what the Palestinians did, and advanced the belief that 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the blocs were just as “illegal” as the most remote hilltop settlement in the middle of the West Bank. As to the question of “new settlements,” according to the Obama administration, Israel never stopped building them in vast numbers. Indeed, in December Obama’s deputy National Security Council adviser actually defended the administration’s decision to allow a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel to pass by claiming that the Israelis had been constructing “tens of thousands” of new settlements. The claim was, of course, rubbish. In fact, there are only approximately 230 settlements in the West Bank including those unauthorized by Israeli law. When Israel’s critics speak of its government’s building “new settlements,” they are referring to the erection of new houses or apartments in existing communities. So the announcement this week that Israel is building several-hundred new homes in Jerusalem and West Bank settlements does not actually fall under Spicer’s definition of construction that “may not be helpful” to the efforts toward a peace deal. The new administration appears to understand, as Obama never did, that the biggest obstacle to peace is the Palestinians. The timing is interesting, because this week Israel did announce legal authorization for what is, contrary to what the mainstream media might tell you, the first “new settlement” to go up in more than 20 years. But even that decision isn’t as bad as it sounds: The settlement was approved to house Israelis who have just been evicted from Amona, a controversial village built on land that wasn’t legally purchased and was ordered demolished by Israeli courts. At worst, then, Spicer’s message may be seen as a mild slap on the wrist for the replacement of Amona. The notion that it is an embrace of Obama’s obsessive criticism of Israeli settlement policy has no basis in fact. The new administration appears to understand, as Obama never did, that the biggest obstacle to peace is the Palestinians, who have repeatedly rejected Israel’s offers of a two-state solution that would involve dismantling settlements. Had they ever said “yes” to Israel’s offers, those settlements beyond Jerusalem and the blocs would have been vacated years ago. On Iran, those arguing that Trump has come around to Obama’s point of view are on even shakier ground. According to the Times, Trump’s decision to impose new sanctions on Iran for its violations of U.N. resolutions forbidding them to test ballistic missiles is proof that he is reverting to one of the “pillars” of Obama’s strategy. Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, however, was contingent on America’s agreeing to dismantle international sanctions. And while Trump has not torn up the deal — a move that would involve its other signatories — he has pledged to try to enforce it more strictly than Obama, and he appears determined to hold the Iranians accountable for non-nuclear misbehavior such as their support for international terrorism. While Trump has not yet moved the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as he promised during the campaign, he has already made it clear that Obama’s quest for more “daylight” between the two allies is over. Only someone who expects Trump to take positions to the right of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements and the two-state solution — Netanyahu has restrained the growth of the former and publicly backs the latter — could characterize the new administration’s policies as being reminiscent of Obama’s. Predicting what Donald Trump will ultimately do in the Middle East or anywhere else is a fool’s errand. But if there is any one overarching theme to his foreign policy it is a rejection of his predecessor’s approach. Trump has already shown an understanding that Obama’s misguided Middle East preoccupations weakened the U.S. position and made the region a more dangerous place. He may make mistakes of his own in the next four years, but it is highly unlikely that he will repeat those of his predecessor. — Jonathan S. Tobin is a contributor to National Review Online. Follow him on Twitter @jonathans_tobin.

...

Read '1984.' Read 'Brave New World.' But don’t just beware the machinations of the totalitarian state—beware the disenchantment of our age.