ActRight

Studies show that newsrooms tilt liberal/Democratic. What's the deal with that?

44th Annual March for Life LIVESTREAM On FOX News Now. ALL TIMES EST: 11:45 a.m. Musical Opening with Transform DJs 12:00 p.m. Rally Program 1:00 p.m. March ...

A play scheduled to open Saturday night in Chicago targets Barron Trump, the ten-year-old son of newly sworn in President ...

There is immeasurable joy to be found in unplanned things.

"This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics... The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists..."

The government has earmarked €21.3 billion for migrants this year.

The president also temporarily suspended immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries and gave preference to Christians from abroad.

Election 2016's goodie bag for Democrats was the popular vote. Having nearly 3 million more votes, or 1% of USA has become fundamental in building support fo...

“@suzie_official Yeah, am hearing this from a lot of people & it's getting me down. I'm just trying to make a positive contribution & hope good comes of it.”

The White House phone-in comment line was non-operational in January 2017, but the change took place during President Obama's administration.

John Kass: If Democrats serious about bracing President Trump, then support Scalia-like nominee to Supreme Court

The entire point of seasonal adjustments being that our figures don't do that. So, I think (and please do note this is think, an opinion, no more) that we might have had some underlying change that we're not dealing well with in said adjustments

Speaking to the Christian Broadcasting Network, President Trump said "we are going to help" Christian refugees.

Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to blast members of his own party for moving forward with legislation that adds nearly $10 trillion t...

The first week of the Trump administration has been a vindication of the American nation-state. Anyone who thought it was a “borderless world,” a category that includes some significant portion of the country’s corporate and intellectual elite, has been disabused of the notion within about the first five days of the Trump years. The theme running throughout President Donald Trump’s inaugural address was the legitimacy of the nation-state as a community, a source of unity, and the best means of advancing the interests of its citizens. The address was widely panned, but early polling indicates the public didn’t share the revulsion of the commentariat. The speech’s broadly nationalistic sentiments were bound to strike people as common sense. “At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.” Who else would it serve? “From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.” Why would anything else come first? Trump’s speech was less poetic, but in one sense more grounded, than George W. Bush’s call for universal liberty in 2005 or Barack Obama’s vision of international cooperation leading to a new era of peace in 2009. Trump spoke of “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” If Bush was a vindicator of universal freedom, and Obama, in his more soaring moments, a citizen of the world, Trump is a dogged citizen of the United States, concerned overwhelmingly with vindicating its interests. His executive order authorizing the building of the wall is an emphatic affirmation of one of the constituent parts of a nation, namely borders. In general, immigration is an important focus for Trump’s nationalism because it involves the question of whether the American people have the sovereign authority to decide who gets to live here or not; of whether the interests of American or foreign workers should be paramount; of whether we assimilate the immigrants we already have into a common culture before welcoming even more. The Trump phenomenon is pushback against what the late political scientist Samuel Huntington called in his 2004 book Who Are We? the “deconstructionist” agenda, a decades-long project of the country’s “de-nationalized” political and intellectual elites. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, Huntington argues, “they began to promote measures consciously designed to weaken America’s cultural and creedal identity and to strengthen racial, ethnic, cultural, and other subnational identities. These efforts by a nation’s leaders to deconstruct the nation they governed were, quite possibly, without precedent in human history.” If Trump is a welcome rebuke to this attitude, caveats are necessary: A proper American nationalism should express not just an affinity for this country’s people, as Trump did in his inaugural address, but for its creed, its institutions, and its history. These are absent from Trump’s rhetoric and presumably his worldview, impoverishing both. Trump’s nationalism has the potential to appeal across racial and ethnic lines, so long as he demonstrates that it isn’t just cover for his loyalty to his preferred subnational group. If Bush was overly expansive in his international vision, Trump could be overly pinched. Bush’s anti-AIDS program in Africa was unvarnished humanitarianism — and will redound to his credit, and the credit of this nation, for a long time. Finally, Trump’s trade agenda also is an expression of his nationalism. Trade deals should have to pass the national-interest test. But protectionism is, historically, a special-interest bonanza that delivers benefits to specific industries only at a disproportionate cost to the rest of the economy. All that said, the nation-state is back, despite all the forecasts of its demise. It is no more in eclipse than religion, which we also were told would fade away as humanity embraced a more secular, cosmopolitan future. The lesson is that it’s a mistake to predict the inevitable decline of things that give meaning to people’s lives and involve fundamental human attachments. The nation is one of them, something that Trump, if he gets nothing else, instinctively understands. — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: [email protected]. © 2017 King Features Syndicate 

Josh Rogin, a foreign-policy and national-security correspondent for the Washington Post, briefly set the political Internet abuzz when he fretted, Chicken Little–style, that the senior leadership of the State Department had resigned en masse. Rex Tillerson’s confirmation as secretary of state had, he suggested, caused an exodus of diligent, talented, indispensable civil servants. Professional #Resistance members dutifully took up Rogin’s hue and cry, gnashing teeth and rending garments because the bureaucratic eschaton had become immanent. Conservative commentators pointed out that the departing civil servants had not exactly distinguished themselves for competency or impartiality during their long careers. Matt Lee, the Associated Press’s diligent and pathologically underappreciated diplomatic writer, sighed that the whole thing was a non-story. The AP, after all, had written up the whole thing a full day before Rogin decided to immolate his hair. The truth is a bit more complicated than first meets the eye. In general, Lee is right: This is not a real story. Whether they were forced out, as reported, or not, is immaterial. Wholesale turnover at the top of the State Department is perfectly normal, and actually began in November, immediately after it became clear that Hillary Clinton would not be the next president. The new administration has not filled the personnel gaps at Foggy Bottom with celerity. Indeed, in addition to the just-departed leadership, the following 15 offices appear to have their leadership posts occupied by placeholders in an “acting” capacity: Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Office of the Legal Adviser Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of Counterterrorism Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Bureau of Political Military Affairs Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Bureau of International Organization Affairs Bureau of International Information Programs Bureau of Public Affairs Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Bureau of Legislative Affairs Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor That’s a lot of empty chairs, and they need to get filled sooner rather than later. However, a slow transition does not mean that indispensable leaders are drifting away. This is a normal function of the transition from one administration to the next. When the sheriff rides off into the sunset, the deputies keep the peace. The people who decamped en masse had helped turn the State Department into an ideological hothouse. Nonetheless, the departing personnel are not, in one important way, just run-of-the-mill civil servants. Under Hillary Clinton, and then John Kerry, the State Department became an intractably politicized department from top to bottom. The people who decamped en masse yesterday were instrumental in helping that process happen. Indeed, their collective decision to resign bespeaks their earlier role in helping turn the State Department into an ideological hothouse rather than a diplomatic engine in pursuit of American interests. Patrick Kennedy, the most conspicuous member of the pack, has made himself an institution at State, and more to the bad. For the last decade, Kennedy has been under secretary for management, or “M” in the parlance of the diplomatic corps. His office oversees the vital functions of the department, including administration of the department, diplomatic security, personnel, budgeting, staffing, information resources, management policy, and a host of other matters. Thus it is Patrick Kennedy who was ultimately responsible for the signal failures of the State Department over the last eight years. The Russian hacking of State’s e-mail servers, which left them so woefully compromised that they had to be shut down for days, was Kennedy’s responsibility. The Benghazi attacks, coming despite repeated warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Libya, was Kennedy’s responsibility. Knowing about and preventing Hillary Clinton’s use of an imprudent and likely illegal homebrew e-mail server was Kennedy’s responsibility. Yet Kennedy survived in his post, despite these failings, in large part because he has been willing to sacrifice the integrity of the bureaucratic process to protect successive secretaries of state. Numerous former employees of the Clinton Global Initiative and the broader Clinton Foundation have taken posts in the department, especially in those parts that deal with international business approval. More egregious still, after a member of the White House advance team – the son of a prominent Clinton donor – got caught up in the Cartagena Secret Service prostitution scandal, the State Department hired him on as a contract policy advisor to the Office on Global Women’s Issues. And no one did more to obstruct Congress’s investigations into Benghazi, and by extension Clinton’s e-mail server, than Kennedy. Kennedy discouraged and slow-rolled bureaus responsible for compliance and security under his control. He actively engaged with the investigation, and not in pursuit of the truth. Indeed, as Tim Mak of The Daily Beast has reported, Kennedy may have “contacted the FBI, offering to allow the FBI to place more agents in Iraq in exchange for changing the classification of an e-mail from Clinton’s private e-mail account.” Thus, while the departure of Patrick Kennedy and his acolytes is a normal part of the peaceful transition of power, Kennedy himself is not, or at least should not be considered, a normal civil servant. He has become a partisan operator in sheep’s clothing, and he is not alone. Conservatives ought to worry about the tardiness of the transition at State, not because it is leading to the departure of the incumbent leadership, but because a more thoroughgoing excavation of the State Department is in order. – Luke Thompson is a partner at the Applecart political consultancy. 

A short and seemingly insignificant …

We asked the marchers at Washington DC's annual anti-abortion rally, the March for Life, whether it is possible to be both feminist and pro-life.

The president's comments come as he issues an executive order limiting refugee entry to the US.

"calling for a wide-ranging re-evaluation of the role of campus disciplinary committees"

The left is fighting mad over today’s massive March for Life on the Washington Mall. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans march against the killing of the unborn; usually, the media ignore the march nearly entirely, but thanks to President Trump calling them out for their failures, they’ve been shamed into covering it.

The left is fighting mad over today’s massive March for Life on the Washington Mall. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans march against the killing of the unborn; usually, the media ignore the march nearly entirely, but thanks to President Trump calling them out for their failures, they’ve been shamed into covering it.

Winship on another level. Visit us at http://ibankcoin.com. Indeud.

The US tightens restrictions on immigrants to stop terrorism - but no details are released.

At some point, Mexicans may just decide to turn their backs on the United States.