#1
Put this one in the loony lefty bin. Hollywood actress Patricia Arquette, known for winning the best supporting actress Oscar two years ago, revealed she’s a conspiracy theorist last night on Twitter. After an Islamic terrorist killed 4 people and wounded at least 40 others in London Wednesday, the actress claimed it was all a ruse by President Trump to distract us from the FBI investigation into his ties with Russia:
loading
#2
This guy has some real nerve.
loading
#3
President Donald Trump's border wall project could get funding through an unlikely method: voluntary donations from private citizens. The newly-founded America First Foundation, Inc., has started
loading
#4
Chuck Schumer confirmed Thursday that senate democrats will use the filibuster to stop Gorsuch nomination.
loading
#5
Rep. Adam Schiff has repeatedly raised questions about alleged collision between Moscow and members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
loading
#6
We dissected Trump’s most rabid reddit following. Here’s what we found.
loading
#7
COLLINSVILLE, IL (KTVI) – The Collinsville mom behind a viral Facebook post spoke to Fox 2/News 11 Wednesday. Her son, Hunter, 4, has been suspended from his preschool for bringing a shell casing from a fired bullet to school. He’d been at the preschool for about a year, she said, and now was in tears.
loading
#8

WikiLeaks on Twitter

Submitted 1 hour ago by ActRight Community

“Obama (and Bush)'s extensive history of 'wire tapping' leaders, their staff, the UN, WTO and more https://t.co/XbwyNSwTXg”
loading
#9
"If I were a betting man, I'd say there won't be a vote today," one GOP lawmaker said.
loading
#10
Those who were highly supportive of the deportations were men, older people with higher incomes and adult without college degrees, according to Reuters poll.
loading
#11
Democrats say Trump is a Russian stooge, Trump claims vindication on wiretapping, and Republicans make a big decision on Trumpcare -- plus, the mailbag!
loading
#12
"Greatly Exaggerated" NBC and Sean Spicer Calls out CNN for their Fake News "We Can't Confirm their Reporting" Very Fake News Follow on Twitter: https://twit...
loading
#13
A spate of stories in Breitbart and other outlets have singled out individual career employees, questioning their loyalty to Trump.
loading
#14
SEATTLE (AP) — The chief justice of the Washington state Supreme Court on Wednesday urged the Department of Homeland Security to keep immigration agents away from courthouses, say
loading
#15

Support the #FreeSpeechBus!

Submitted 3 hours ago by ActRight Community

The #FreeSpeechBus is now in the United States and Spain. Show your support! Boys are boys, and girls are girls. It's biology, not bigotry.
loading
#16
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued Tuesday that the Senate shouldn't hold a vote on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee while Trump is being investigated for possible ties to the Russian government. There's a cloud now hanging over the head of the president, and while that's happening – to have a lifetime appointment made by this president seems very unseemly and there ought to be a delay, Schumer told reporters. Schumer declined to say how many Democrats agree with him. Well, you will have to ask them, but my view is very simple, he said. Schumer first called for delaying the Gorsuch vote on Tuesday. He argued that it is the height of irony that Republicans held the Supreme Court seat open for nearly a full year to block consideration of President Barack Obama's choice of Merrick Garland to for a seat on the high court, but are now rushing to fill the seat for a president who is under investigation by the FBI.
loading
#17
Put this one in the loony lefty bin. Hollywood actress Patricia Arquette, known for winning the best supporting actress Oscar two years ago, revealed she’s a conspiracy theorist last night on Twitter. After an Islamic terrorist killed 4 people and wounded at least 40 others in London Wednesday, the actress claimed it was all a ruse by President Trump to distract us from the FBI investigation into his ties with Russia:
loading
#18
President Trump learned from the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday that his communications may have been intercepted as a byproduct of legal surveillance by the federal...
loading
#19
1. Yes, Trump Is 100% Vindicated On Wiretapping Yeppers, I said 100% vindicated, and those who disagree are either being stubbornly hyper-literal about the word "wiretap," or the placing of a "physical wiretap," or Obama himself placing the wiretap, or standing by the point Ben Shapiro makes that Trump is still wrong because the surveillance was "incidental."
loading
#20
One has to wonder why Democrats are fond of shooting themselves in the foot. The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court will not shift the balance of the court. He is a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. Yet Democrats, in their ever-growing inability to ?get it? are going to filibuster Gorsuch?s nomination. From The Washington Post: Gorsuch “declined to answer question after question | Read More
loading
#21
I don't think Nunes picked up any LOVE points with this apology but if he felt he had to do it, who am I challenge him.
loading
#22
Seems like Al Jazeera viewers were having a very good time yesterday after reacting with "joy" following the horrific terrorist attacks in London.
loading
#23
As loyal as I am, as patriotic as I am, as much as my whole younger life was about joining the British military and fighting for my country — I fear we are broken, says Katie Hopkins.
loading
#24
As I demonstrated in Monday’s column, Democratic efforts to claim that Judge Gorsuch should be defeated because Republicans “stole” a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland and President Obama collapse when you look at the history of election-year nominations. This is the seventh time that the Senate has left an election-year Supreme Court vacancy open for the next president, and of the ten such vacancies to happen when the President and the Senate were from different parties, six were left vacant, three were confirmed after Election Day in favor of the party that won the election, and only one (in 1888) was confirmed before Election Day. There are a couple of common responses to this. One is to note that the Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, in the election year of 1988. But Justice Kennedy was a victory for Democrats on a vacancy that long predated an election they ended up losing badly. Lewis Powell’s swing seat came open in June 1987, and Reagan’s first two, more conservative choices were thwarted (Bork by his defeat in the Senate, Douglas Ginsburg by withdrawal). The Senate in February 1988 – after more than seven months of delay, and a week before the Iowa Caucus - confirming an Earl Warren protege who would go on to deliver massive victories for liberals on a number of key cultural issues (such as abortion and same-sex marriage). Moreover, Democrats in 1988 were acting in their partisan self-interest in taking the Kennedy nomination while they could, rather than run the 1988 campaign on cultural wedge issues (exactly what their nominee, Michael Dukakis, tried and failed to avoid). The second is to complain that Garland never got an up-or-down vote. But as I noted in my column, majority parties in the Senate have used a variety of procedural devices to thwart Supreme Court nominees; of the 34 failed nominations (not counting one who was withdrawn and resubmitted for technical reasons), only twelve received a direct vote, and five were withdrawn in the face of opposition. The rest were prevented from moving forward due to a variety of Senate procedures. Some of those involved a vote on the record to table the nomination, some did not (William Micou’s nomination by Millard Fillmore in 1853 died without any action by the Senate). But Garland would have received a vote if there had been significant defections from the GOP majority; the absence of such defections (aside from Mark Kirk) means that a majority decided not to confirm him. A filibuster by a minority of the Senate would have been a radical step, but in this case, it was the Senate majority exercising its power. Democrats are hardly on pristine ground here. Since the bipartisan (24 Republicans and 19 conservative Democrats) 1968 election-year filibuster of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry, there have been two efforts at filibusters of Supreme Court nominees, both by Democrats: against Samuel Alito and William Rehnquist. There’s some debate over whether the first of Rehnquist’s nominations can truly considered to have been filibustered: in 1971, Democrats denied that they were filibustering him, then defeated a Republican cloture motion (the 52-42 margin for cloture fell short of the 67 votes then required), but proceeded to allow an immediate vote. But in 1986, when he was nominated for Chief Justice, a cloture motion was filed to stop a Ted Kennedy filibuster, and passed 68-31, with sixteen Democrats voting for cloture and 31 against (Senators voting against cloture included Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Al Gore). A more organized effort, led by Kerry, was made to filibuster Alito. This time, cloture passed by a vote of 72-25, with Kerry, Kennedy and Biden now joined by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin, among others, voting to filibuster Alito’s nomination. The third and final avenue of attack is to complain that sure, the Senate has spiked nominees without a floor vote before, but they didn’t even give Garland a hearing. But this misunderstands the role and history of hearings. The Constitution says nothing about nomination hearings, which are a relatively modern innovation. No Supreme Court nomination received a public hearing until Louis Brandeis in 1916, and Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925 was the first nominee to appear and testify before the Senate. Harold Burton in 1945 was the last Justice confirmed without a hearing. (John Marshall Harlan II was denied a hearing when nominated after the midterm elections in 1954, although he returned, testified and was confirmed in the following Senate session in 1955.) And as any nominee (including Gorsuch) can tell you, Judiciary Committee hearings aren’t for the benefit of the nominee, they’re for the benefit of the Senators. In 2016, the Senate majority decided to leave the Scalia vacancy open, to be filled after an election they had only slim hopes of winning. No hearing would have persuaded anyone of anything. The Senate wastes enough time on pointless charades as it is. The Senate’s refusal to consider the Garland nomination was a new packaging of the Senate’s power, and Democrats are right to complain that it was yet another step down the path of that has poisoned the confirmation process. But it was not actually unprecedented in any meaningful way for the party controlling the Senate to decide that an election year Supreme Court nomination should be set aside until after the election.  
loading
#25
Perry's intervention in the campus politics of his alma mater via an op-ed was called “extraordinary” and “strange."
loading