ActRight

Approximately 3,000 people from the seven countries listed in President Donald Trump's travel ban were allowed to enter the US between February 4 and February 6, according to figures provided Saturday by the Department of Homeland Security.

Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, has a profound connection to Israel. When he meets with the country’s prime minister on Wednesday, it will be a gathering influenced by old encounters and shared experiences.

3 Somalian Terrorists Would Have Not Been Allowed Into U.S. Under Trump’s Plan The mainstream media inaccurately reports on a ...

Fight DESPAIR with DEFIANCE! Be a Radical! Be Revolutionary! RESIST! This is a video about how it's totally way more baller to be a radical than it is to be ...

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey write that under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, a state university could go to court on behalf of any alien, anywhere.

Influential Mexicans are pushing an aggressive strategy to fight a likely increase in deportations of their undocumented compatriots in the U.S.: jam U.S. immigration courts in hopes of causing the system to break down.

being berated with the suggestion that all white males are racist sexist homophobic xenophobic and islamophobic has gotten me thinking, maybe I am all those ...

Yale University will no longer have a residential college named in honor of 19th-century alumnus John C. Calhoun, known for his support of slavery. The decision reverses one made last spring, when the university president said he wanted to confront, rather than erase, history. The college will be renamed in honor of an alumna, Grace Murray Hopper, who was a pioneering computer scientist.

Republicans blocked Obama at every turn and won. But the same thing may not work for Democrats.

Carro toca música IMAGINE de John Lennon e projeta SEM MEDO nas ruas de Vitória em meio ao CAOS no Espírito Santo Carro de som toca 'Imagine' e pede paz nas ...

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. W...

What Republicans and what Americans hate about Obamacare are different. Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO Vox.com is a news website that helps y...

State Senator de Leon has been "leading the fight" to make California sanctuary state

‘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.

A California Islamic school is rejecting $800,000 in federal funds aimed at combatting violent extremism less a month into Donald Trump's presidency.

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's extreme vetting executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is no evidence those countries have produced a terrorist. According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as students, and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens. The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven: — Somalia: 20 — Yemen: 19 — Iraq: 19 — Syria: 7 — Iran: 4 — Libya: 2 — Sudan: 1 The Center's director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan, based her blockbuster report on a 2016 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, that report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz held a town hall-style forum at Brighton High School in Cottonwood Heights on Thursday, Feb. 9. Here's the event in its entirety, ta...

Ezra Levin, co-author of the "Indivisible" guide, talks with Rachel Maddow about helping online, local, grassroots activists organize resistance to the Donal...

Rachel Maddow Exposes Far Right LIBERTARIAN Fake TownHall "Protesters" By Koch Brothers, "FreedomWorks" + "AforP" Fake Protests by Far Right LIBERTARIAN Medi...

Pretend You Are A Family Physician In Baghdad. The Three Justices Are Converts To Bolshevism.

“Berkeley students offer arguments defending use of violence in protests. Another step down the road to hell. https://t.co/d5yzLyzg6j”

The executive order by the Trump administration on immigration led to an urgent desire to proclaim there is no terrorism threat from immigrants. False.

Once again, "investigative reporter" Jeff Rossen goes out of his way to not tell the whole story and whip up hysteria to attack gun owners.

Angela Merkel is setting aside €90m (£76m) in taxpayers' money to pay migrants to leave Germany voluntarily.