ActRight

The videographer, two assistants and the parents of two children who appear in the film were detained by police

Should Zionist goals be pursued to the point of tolerating anti-Semitism?

Los Angeles city and county leaders on Monday unveiled a $10-million fund to provide legal assistance for residents facing deportation, the region’s boldest move yet as it prepares for an expected crackdown on illegal immigration by Donald Trump.

Throughout the chaos of 2016 one thing has become abundantly clear: The press has failed the people

Hey, white guys: we came up for some New Year's Resolutions for you, some of which include Black Lives Matter, Beyoncé, Kanye West, and more! Update: This vi...

The New Republic wrote an expose on Media Matters for America Monday that included a shocking-- simply shocking-- revelation: the David Brock-run organization

In their desperate attempts to paint the incoming Trump administration as anti-Semitic, The Huffington Post has found a story they think will really stick: National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn met with Heinz-Christian Strache, the head of the Austrian Freedom Party, a few weeks ago. Strache is an ally of Vladimir Putin’s; the Freedom Party is a far-right European nationalist party. Their headline: “MIKE AND REICH: FLYNN MET LEADER OF EX-NAZI PARTY.”

It’s been a rough couple days for The Washington Post. Word emerged that hackers invaded its internal system—for a few days, no less—all of its staffers had to change their passwords as the company tried to figure out how much data had been compromised. Meanwhile, a petition campaign was launched related to news that Amazon, under the Post’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a “private cloud” for the CIA to use for its data needs. Critics charge that, at a minimum, the Post needs to disclose its CIA link whenever it reports on the agency. Over 15,000 have signed the petition this week hosted by RootsAction. Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50! In a statement released by the Institute for Public Accuracy, media writer/author Robert McChesney observes: When the main shareholder in one of the very largest corporations in the world benefits from a massive contract with the CIA on the one hand, and that same billionaire owns the Washington Post on the other hand, there are serious problems. The Post is unquestionably the political paper of record in the United States, and how it covers governance sets the agenda for the balance of the news media. Citizens need to know about this conflict of interest in the columns of the Post itself. If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.” See article by Norman Solomon for a fuller accounting. He notes: Bezos personally and publicly touts Amazon Web Services, and it’s evident that Amazon will be seeking more CIA contracts. Last month, Amazon issued a statement saying, “We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA.” Read next: Greg Mitchell’s post on CNN deleting a tweet claiming that Edward Snowden offered to spy on the US.

The American middle classes, the Chinese, and Vladimir Putin have never been convinced that Ivy League degrees, vast Washington experience, and cultural sophistication necessarily translate into national wisdom. Trump instead relies more on instinct and operates from cunning — and we will soon see whether we should redefine “wisdom.” But for now, for example, we have never heard a presidential candidate say such a thing as “We love our miners” — not “we like” miners, but “we love” them. And not just any miners, but “our” miners, as if, like “our vets,” the working people of our moribund economic regions were unique and exceptional people, neither clingers nor irredeemables. In Trump’s gut formulation, miners certainly did not deserve “to be put out of business” by Hillary Clinton, as if they were little more than the necessary casualties of the war against global warming. For Trump, miners were not the human equivalent of the 4,200 bald eagles that the Obama administration recently assured the wind turbine industry can be shredded for the greater good of alternate energy and green profiteering. In other words, Trump instinctively saw the miners of West Virginia — and by extension the working-class populations of states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio — as emblematic of the forgotten man, in a way few of his Republican rivals, much less Hilary Clinton, grasped.    No other candidate talked as constantly about jobs, “fair” trade, illegal immigration, and political correctness — dead issues to most other pollsters and politicos. Rivals, Democratic and Republican alike, had bought into the electoral matrix of Barack Obama: slicing the electorate into identity-politics groups and arousing them to register and vote in record numbers against “them” — a fossilized, supposedly crude, illiberal, and soon-to-be-displaced white working class. For Democrats that meant transferring intact Obama’s record numbers of minority voters to a 68-year-old multimillionaire white woman; for Republicans, it meant pandering with a kinder, softer but still divisive identity-politics message. Trump instinctively saw a different demographic. And even among minority groups, he detected a rising distaste for being patronized, especially by white, nasal-droning, elite pajama-boy nerds whose loud progressivism did not disguise their grating condescension.   Trump Dismissed as a Joke Yet even after destroying the Clinton Dynasty, the Bush-family aristocracy, the Obama legacy, and 16 more-seasoned primary rivals, Trump was dismissed by observers as being mostly a joke, idiotic and reckless. Such a dismissal is a serious mistake, because what Trump lacks in traditionally defined sophistication and awareness, he more than makes up for in shrewd political cunning of a sort not seen since the regnum of Franklin Roosevelt. Take a few recent examples. Candidate Donald Trump was roundly hounded by the political and media establishment for suggesting that the election might be “rigged.” Trump was apparently reacting to old rumors of voting-machine irregularities. (In fact, in about a third of blue Detroit’s precincts, to take just one example, more votes this election were recorded than there were registered voters.)  Or perhaps Trump channeled reports that there was an epidemic of invalid or out-of-date voter registrations. (Controversially, the normally staid Pew Charitable Trust found that 2.4 million voter registrations were no longer accurate or were significantly inaccurate.)  Or maybe he fanned fears that illegal aliens were voting. (Another controversial study from two professors at Old Dominion suggested that over 6 percent of non-citizens may have voted in 2008; and the president on the eve of the election, in his usual wink-and-nod fashion, assured the illegal-alien community that there would be no federal interest in examining immigration status in connection with voting status.)  Or perhaps Trump was convinced that the media and the Democratic establishment worked hand in hand to warp elections and media coverage. (The WikiLeaks trove revealed that media operatives leaked primary debate questions and sent their stories to the Clinton campaign for fact-checking before publication, as two successive DNC chairpersons resigned in disgrace for purportedly sabotaging the primary-challenge efforts of Bernie Sanders.) For all this and more, Trump was roundly denounced by the status quo as a buffoon who cherry-picked scholarly work to offer puerile distortions. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both expressed outrage at Trump’s supposedly incendiary suggestions of voter irregularity, alleging that Trump was either delusional or insurrectionary or both.  But was he? Or did he sense that his candidacy was touching off an “any means necessary” effort of unethical progressives to warp the law and custom for purportedly noble ends? After the election, that supposition was more than confirmed.   The Joke’s on Them Trump’s enemies have now proved him a Nostradamus. Fourth-party candidate Jill Stein, joined by the remains of the Clinton campaign, asked for a recount of the 2016 election, but only in those states that provided Trump his electoral majority and only on the assumption that there was zero chance that Stein’s candidacy would be affected by any conceivable new vote figure. Though perhaps, Trump’s critics wished, the recount would resurrect the candidacy of Stein’s stalking horse Hillary Clinton.  Trump’s enemies have now proved him a Nostradamus. Then members of the Clinton campaign and powerful Democrats joined an effort to pressure electors of the Electoral College to defy their state-mandated duty to reflect the vote totals of their states and instead refrain from voting for Donald Trump. That was all but a neo-Confederate, insurrectionary act that sought to nullify the spirit of the Constitution and the legal statues of many states — part and parcel of new surreal progressive embrace of states’-rights nullification that we have not seen since the days of George Wallace. Trump then earned greater outrage when he questioned the CIA’s sudden announcement, via leaks, that the Russians had hacked Clinton-campaign communication. When Trump said that the newfound post-election “consensus” on Russian hacking was improper, unreliable, and suggestive of an overly politicized intelligence apparatus, he once again drew universal ire — proof positive that he lacked a “presidential” temperament.  Yet our intelligence agencies do have a history of politicization. The 2006 national intelligence assessment at the height of the Iraq insurgency and of George W. Bush’s unpopularity oddly claimed that Iran had stopped nuclear-weapons work as early as 2003 — a finding that, if plausible, would probably have rendered irrelevant all of Obama’s frantic efforts just three years later to conclude an Iran deal. And our intelligence agencies’ record at assessment is not exactly stellar, given that it missed the Pakistan and Indian nuclear-bomb programs, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and the status of Saddam’s WMD program. There is still no solid proof of deliberate Russian cyber interference intended to aid Donald Trump. Loretta Lynch is skeptical that Russia tried to help the Trump campaign. A Washington Post story alleging that the RNC was hacked was based on myth. WikiLeaks, for what it is worth, insists its source was not Russian. And we now learn that intelligence authorities are refusing to testify in closed session to the House Intelligence Committee about the evidence that prompted their odd post-election announcements — announcements that contradict their earlier pre-election suggestions that Russian hacking was not affecting the election. One possibility is that the likelihood of a Clinton victory spurred the administration and the likely president-elect to suggest that the election process remained sacrosanct and immune from all tampering — while the completely unforeseen loss to Trump abruptly motivated them to readjust such assessments. Trump has a habit of offering off-the-cuff unconventional observations — often unsubstantiated by verbal footnotes and in hyperbolic fashion. Then he is blasted for ignorance and recklessness by bipartisan grandees. Only later, and quietly, he is often taken seriously, but without commensurate public acknowledgement. A few more examples. Candidate Trump blasted the “free-loading” nature of NATO, wondered out loud why it was not fighting ISIS or at least Islamic terrorism, and lamented the inordinate American contribution and the paucity of commensurate allied involvement. Pundits called that out as heresy, at least for a few weeks — until scholars, analysts, and politicos offered measured support for Trump’s charges. Europeans, shocked by gambling in Casablanca, scrambled to assure that they were upping their defense contributions and drawing the NATO line at the Baltic States.  President-elect Trump generated even greater outrage in the aftermath of the election when he took a call from the Taiwanese president. Pundits exploded. Foreign policy hands were aghast. Did this faker understand the dimensions of his blunder? Was he courting nuclear war? Trump shrugged, as reality again intruded: Why sell billions of dollars in weaponry to Taiwan if you cannot talk to its president? Are arms shipments less provocative than receiving a single phone call? Why talk “reset” to the thuggish murderous Castro brothers but not to a democratically elected president? Why worry what China thinks, given that it has swallowed Tibet and now created artificial islands in the South China Sea, in defiance of all maritime custom, law, and tradition? Two weeks later after the call, analysts — true to the pattern — meekly agreed that such a phone call was hardly incendiary. Perhaps, they mused, it was overdue and had a certain logic. Perhaps it had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U.S. may now appear as unpredictable to China as China has appeared to the U.S. Perhaps the Taiwan call had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U.S. may now appear as unpredictable to China as China has appeared to the U.S. More recently, Trump asked in a tweet why we should take back a sea drone stolen by China from under the nose of a U.S. ship. Aside from questions of whether the drone is now compromised, damaged, or bugged, would anyone be happy that a thief appeared days later at the door, offering back the living room’s stolen loot, on the condition to just let bygones be bygones — at least until the next heist? On most issues, Trump sensed what was verbiage and what was doable — and what was the indefensible position of his opponents. Prune away Trump’s hyperbole, and we see that his use of the illegal immigration issue is another good example. Finishing the existing southern border wall is sane and sober. “Making Mexico pay for it” can quietly be accomplished, at least in part, by simply taxing the over $50 billion in remittances sent to Mexico and Latin America by those in the U.S. who cannot prove legal residence or citizenship. Ending sanctuary cities will win majority support: Who wants to make the neo-Confederate argument that local jurisdictions can override U.S. law — and, indeed, who would make that secessionist case on behalf of violent criminal aliens? Deporting illegal-alien law-breakers — or those who are fit and able but without any history of work — is likewise the sort of position that the Left cannot, for political reasons, easily oppose. As for the rest, after closing off the border, Trump will likely shrug and allow illegal aliens who are working, who have established a few years of residence, and who are non-criminal to pay a fine, learn English, and get a green card — perhaps relegating the entire quagmire of illegal immigration to a one-time American aberration that has diminishing demographic and political relevance.   Trump the Brawler Finally, Trump sensed that the proverbial base was itching for a bare-knuckles fighter. They wanted any kind of brawler who would not play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules of 2008 and 2012 that had doomed Romney and McCain, who, fairly or not, seemed to wish to lose nobly rather than win in black-and-blue fashion, and who were sometimes more embarrassed than proud of their base. Trump again foresaw that talking trash in crude tones would appeal to middle Americans as much as Obama’s snarky and ego-driven, but otherwise crude trash-talking delighted his coastal elites. So Trump said the same kinds of things to Hillary Clinton that she, in barely more measured tones, had often said to others but never expected anyone to say out loud to her. And the more the media cried foul, the more Trump knew that voters would cry “long overdue.” #related#We can expect that Trump’s impulsiveness and electronically fed braggadocio will often get him into trouble. No doubt his tweets will continue to offend. But lost amid the left-wing hatred of Trump and the conservative Never Trump condescension is that so far he has shattered American political precedents by displaying much more political cunning and prescience than have his political opponents and most observers. Key is his emperor-has-no-clothes instinct that what is normal and customary in Washington was long ago neither sane nor necessary. And so far, his candidacy has not only redefined American politics but also recalibrated the nature of insight itself — leaving the wise to privately wonder whether they were ever all that wise after all. — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

A professor at the University of Kentucky is claiming that he was punished for “sexual misconduct” for reasons including the fact that he sang a Beach Boys song during one of his classes.  In a piece for the Lexington Herald Leader, Buck Ryan claims that he sang a version of the song during the closing ceremonies for a “Storytelling: Exploring China’s Art and Culture” class that he taught as part of a UK-sponsored Education Week program at a Chinese university.  He said he used the song to teach the differences between Chinese and American culture, replacing some of the names of the original American places in the song with Chinese ones, for example: “Well Shanghai girls are hip; I really dig those styles they wear.” Ryan claims that even though a three-month investigation revealed absolutely no student complaints — and many of the students who attended the ceremony had told him that they liked his song — the school still decided to punish him for “sexual misconduct” by “ban[ning him from] receiving international travel funds and [stripping him] of a prestigious award worth thousands of dollars” because the song included “language of a sexual nature.”  Yes, a song that has been (as Ryan pointed out) covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks was apparently too “sexual” for his class full of adult students and therefore amounted to a Title IX violation. Ryan said that he was “convicted without trial” over both the song and “inappropriate behavior . . . with two women students.” The “inappropriate behavior,” which Ryan claims “never occurred,” was not reported by the students themselves but rather by other UK faculty, and the students had, according to Ryan, “wanted to defend” him but “were never interviewed by university officials.” (Note: There was never an allegation of a “sexual” relationship between Ryan and another student, simply of an “inappropriate” one for reasons including a student’s being spotted wearing one of his sweatshirts, and the fact that he and a student had been in a suite together — which Ryan claimed he figured was okay because he was “helping the student with her English” and “there were always students coming in and out of the suite.)  According to Ryan, the dean never actually spoke to him about the incident, either, and he found out about his punishment “in a letter dropped on me by two assistants just before [he] was to teach a class.” When he inquired further, he claims, the provost told him the following:  “There is no constitutional right to represent the University of Kentucky abroad. Nor is there a constitutional right to teach a particular class. Accordingly, the University has no obligation to provide you with due process.” The craziest thing about all of this is the allegation that the song amounts to a violation of Title IX, which states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”  #related#Any reasonable person would read that and have a hard time believing it was written with protecting people from Beach Boys songs in mind, but unfortunately, I can’t say I’m all that surprised. Since President Obama’s administration has expanded the definitions of what falls under Title IX, we’ve seen a student get expelled for calling his ex a “psycho” on Twitter, a fraternity be accused of “sexual harassment” over a dancing Teletubby, resident assistants suggesting that making jokes about Harambe might be considered Title IX violations, and much more. It’s pretty ridiculous — and ridiculous becomes scary when you consider that universities’ compliance with these Title IX regulations is linked to the federal funding they receive — giving colleges a real financial incentive to, if there’s any question, punish a professor over a song rather than to look into what really happened. – Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review.  

‘Horrifying.” That’s how Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton described GOP standard-bearer Donald J. Trump’s statement in the final, October 19 presidential debate. Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace asked Trump whether — even facing defeat — he would “absolutely accept the result of this election.” Trump answered, “I will look at it at the time.” He added: “We’ll find out on November 8th. . . . I’ll keep you in suspense.” Maybe Trump wanted room to address a potential Bush v. Gore–style virtual tie, perhaps involving today’s equivalent of hanging chads. “That is not the way our democracy works,” Clinton snapped moments later. “We’ve been around for 240 years, we’ve had free and fair elections, we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage in a general election.” “On Wednesday night, Donald Trump did something no other presidential nominee has ever done. He refused to say he would respect the results of this election,” Clinton told voters in Cleveland two days hence. “Now, make no mistake, by doing that he is threatening our democracy.” She continued: “We know in our country, the difference between leadership and dictatorship.” Clinton’s bodyguards in the liberal media echoed her sentiments. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond called Trump’s remarks “a caveat that threatens to cast unprecedented doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process.” Diamond added, “Trump kept alive a worrying conspiracy theory that his underdog candidacy could be defeated by below-board behavior.” “The candidate’s reckless closing message that nothing is on the level — not Democrats, not the press, not the polls, not Republican leaders, not even the integrity of the voting process — has left many of his supporters prepared to declare the election results illegitimate,” the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank lectured. In an article headlined “Donald Trump’s astonishing, damaging refusal to accept the fundamental premise of American elections,” the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump scolded, “He’s willing to cast a shadow over the process that undergirds the most prosperous, stable nation in world history.” Of course, within three weeks, the shoo-in Democrat lost to the hopeless Republican. While Trump won only 46 percent of the popular vote to 48 percent for Clinton, the New York real-estate magnate took the tally that mattered, with an upset, 74-vote margin in the Electoral College, 306 votes to 232. (Losing the Electoral College but winning the presidential popular vote is an interesting but inconsequential consolation prize — much like a baseball team with fewer runs than its opponents, but more base hits.) Trump’s 57 percent to 43 percent Electoral College triumph remains one of the most stunning finishes in American history. As members of the Electoral College cast their ballots in state capitals across America today, it is instructive to recall how holistically Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and other Trumpophobes have abandoned “the way our democracy works,” as Clinton put it. Nearly six weeks after the polls closed, leftists refuse to accept Trump’s victory. They too often resemble Venezuelan street mobs. Their despicable actions are altogether un-American. As members of the Electoral College cast their ballots across America today, it is instructive to recall how holistically Clinton and her supporters have abandoned ‘the way our democracy works.’ Consider just a few of the countless ways — large and small — that hordes of Hillary’s fans and Donald’s foes bull-headedly have rejected the outcome of November 8’s free, fair, and decisive presidential election. Not just for a few days, but for weeks, Clinton’s supporters marched through the streets and sometimes prevented regular citizens from going about their business. Many of these protesters bore signs that read “Not my president” and “We don’t accept the president-elect.” Liberals demonstrated that “Love Trumps hate” by blocking freeways in Los Angeles, smashing store windows and police-car windshields in Portland, Ore., setting trashcans ablaze in Oakland, and otherwise proving that, in reality, “Left hates Trump.” A Muslim woman named Yasmin Sewied claimed that three drunks confronted her on a Manhattan subway train on December 1, called her a “terrorist,” told her, “Go back to your country,” tried to grab her headscarf, and shouted, “Trump! Trump!” Sewied now faces criminal charges. She lied to the police about this “incident,” which she totally invented. Sewied had been out drinking with friends and concocted an imaginary hate crime to gain sympathy with her devoutly Islamic parents. They already were upset that she dated a Catholic. So, as the New York Post reported, Sewied tarred Trump fans with lies. In a genuine subway assault, Corey Cataldo, a 24-year-old white man wearing a Make America Great Again hat, was attacked on a Number 5 train in the Bronx on November 12. According to police, a 6-foot tall, 190-pound black man saw the hat and asked Cataldo, “Are you a Trump supporter?” After Cataldo said yes, the attacker replied, “Great. Another white Trump supporter.” He then tried to strangle Cataldo with his bare hands before fleeing the subway train at 149th Street. In yet another outburst of political violence, David Wilcox, a white driver in Chicago, emerged from his Pontiac Bonneville after a black sedan scraped it on the day after the election. “I got out of the car,” Wilcox later told the Chicago Tribune, “One of the guys – an African-American at the bus stop — said, ‘Yeah, that’s one of those white-boy Trump supporters.’ And I said, ‘What’s that got to do with this accident? I just want to exchange insurance.’ And then, next thing I know, the guy said, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’re going to beat his ass.’” Wilcox soon was brutalized in broad daylight by black thugs and repeatedly beaten, shoved to the ground, kicked on the asphalt, and punched in his head. One witness to this mayhem, which is on video, gleefully yelled, “You voted Trump! You voted Trump! Daaaaaaaamn!” Others reportedly shouted: “Don’t vote Trump,” and “You gonna pay for that shit!” A black man stole Wilcox’s car and dragged him along its side, as Wilcox hung on for his life through an open window. He finally let go and rolled five to seven times along Roosevelt Road before stopping in an oncoming-traffic lane. He was treated for his injuries at Mount Sinai Hospital and released. Wilcox, in fact, voted for Trump, although the racist onlookers to the attack only assumed as much because of his complexion. “What’s happening to America?” a badly bruised Wilcox asked the Chicago Tribune the next day. “You’re supposed to be able to vote in peace. It’s supposed to be part of our democracy, and what happened is I vote for somebody, and I get beaten, robbed, and my car stolen, and I have no way of getting my wife to and from work safe anymore.” Chicago police on November 18 arrested Julian Christian, 26; Dejuan Collins, 20; Rajane Lewis, 21; and an unidentified 17-year-old female. Each faces one felony count of vehicular hijacking. Police say these four pounded Wilcox. Monisha Rajesh, a train columnist with The Telegraph of London, said this via Twitter on Election Night: “It’s about time for a presidential assassination.” After Green-party nominee Jill Stein launched recount efforts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton’s campaign stepped in to support her efforts, thoroughly contradicting every consonant that Clinton had uttered about the sanctity of losers’ accepting election results. While judges eventually halted the re-tabulations in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Wisconsin’s was completed. Rather than help Stein or Clinton, the Badger State recount revealed 131 additional votes for Trump. The Left has sunk post-electoral intransigence to a spectacular and unprecedented new low: tampering with the Electoral College itself. Calling themselves Americans Take Action, actors including Martin Sheen and Noah Wyle appeared in a TV ad supported by a $500,000 media buy. They urged GOP Electoral College members to dump Trump, the will of their states’ voters be damned. Even worse, pro-Trump electors have faced heretofore unseen intimidation by Clinton’s supporters, some of whom placed those electors’ personal details online. The lucky ones have coped only with hostile e-mails, letters, and phone calls — often in the thousands. It is total harassment,” said Robert Graham, an Arizona elector and state GOP chairman. As the Arizona Republic reported on November 18, Graham added: “It started about a week ago. Now? ‘Bam!’ It’s hardcore.” An elector told the Arizona Republic that he has received hundreds of phone calls in ‘an outright political maneuver.’ Arizona’s Sharon Geise said that she has received some 50,000 e-mails since the election, pushing her to ditch Trump. “They just keep coming and coming,” she told the New York Post. “They’re overpowering my iPad.” Others have endured far uglier bullying. Bruce Ash, an elector and one of Arizona’s three Republican National Committee members, told the Republic that he has received hundreds of phone calls in “an outright political maneuver.” Ash said, “They demonize me, they call me a homophobic, an isolationist, a bigot, a misogynist, and an anti-Semite, which is interesting because I’m Jewish.” Texas elector Rex Teter received a letter that read, “May your tombstone and life be a laughing fallacy if you let this evil in the gate.” “I have been inundated with death threats, death wishes, generally angry messages trying to get me to change my vote to Hillary Clinton or another person,” Michigan GOP elector Michael Banerian told CNN. “I’ve had people talk about putting a bullet in the back of my mouth. I’ve had death wishes or people just saying, ‘I hope you die.’ Or, ‘Do society a favor, throw yourself in front of a bus.’ . . . These people not only called for the burning of myself, but my family.’” “In Pennsylvania,” according to today’s edition of the Telegraph, “the situation has become so serious that some 20 electors have reportedly been assigned plainclothes state police troopers for protection.” One of them, Ash Khare, is an Indian immigrant and longtime Republican. He confirms being guarded by state law enforcement and said that he has received “nasty” phone calls as late as 1:00 a.m. “I’m a big boy,” Khare told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “But this is stupid. Nobody is standing up and telling these people, ‘Enough. Knock it off.’” Now imagine if Hillary Clinton had won this election and Trump’s supporters behaved like leftists. Democrats, how would you like that? Of course, this is an absurd hypothetical. Republicans and conservatives grumble and grind their molars when their standard-bearers lose. What they don’t do is destroy personal property, blockade highways, commit arson, and terrorize members of the Electoral College. The Right was saddened to see Obama beat Mitt Romney and John McCain. Nonetheless, Obama’s allies freely backed him in the Electoral College without suffering through TV ads and even highly felonious death threats demanding that they vote him down. #related#Meanwhile, when will the FBI and the Justice Department’s Voting Rights and Civil Rights divisions start probing and prosecuting these death threats? If Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to lift a finger, incoming attorney general Jeff Sessions must make this a high priority and a teaching moment for these anti-American criminals. As low as the Left has fallen, their rejectionism is far from finished. Radical cineaste Michael Moore wants enraged Democrats and other election deniers to flood Washington next January 20 and “disrupt the Inauguration.” This suggests that the last six weeks of leftist fury were just the beginning. American liberals never will accept that Donald J. Trump won the November 8 election — fair and square. All they are saying is they won’t give Trump a chance. — Deroy Murdock is a New York–based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online.

It’s one of the greatest examples of “careful what you wish for” in political history: President Obama is going to be replaced by the kind of Republican he’s always said he wanted.

A last-ditch effort by never-Trumpers to derail the president-elect’s victory in the Electoral College fell flat Monday, leaving the anti-Trump movement licking its wounds and looking to 2017 on how it may be able to try and thwart Trump’s presidency and his agenda.

Breaking with all precedent, Trump will apparently retain his private squad of loyal ex-cops in the White House

From coal miners to school children to law enforcement, Americans are hopeful once again.

Members of the Black Panthers of Milwaukee, some armed with guns, marched through the Sherman Park neighborhood on Sunday to protest what they called the "genocide" of African Americans at the hands of law enforcement.

Not even Chief Justice Marshall would have agreed to this level of judicial overreach.

President Obama took the historic step to ban offshore oil drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coastline, the White House announced Tuesday afternoon. The action represents a partnership between the United States and Canada to build a strong Arctic economy, preserve a healthy Arctic ecosystem and protect our fragile Arctic waters, including designating the bulk of our Arctic water and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean as indefinitely off limits to future oil and gas leasing, the White House said. The actions, and Canada's parallel actions, reflect the scientific assessment that, even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region's harsh conditions is limited, the White House said. By contrast, it would take decades to fully develop the production infrastructure necessary for any large-scale oil and gas leasing production in the region — at a time when we need to continue to move decisively away from fossil fuels, according to the statement.

President Obama on Tuesday ordered U.S.-owned waters in the Arctic Ocean and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean placed indefinitely off-limits for future oil and gas leases, in a final fossil-fuel crackdown before he leaves office.

News that a veteran’s corpse was left in a shower room for nine hours linked to a cover-up as dinosaur VSOs call on Trump to keep Sec McDonald. Last week was a real humdinger for veterans waiting i…

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) managers wanted to fire a hospital director for misconduct, but wound up paying him $85,000 instead to resign "from federal service voluntarily, completely and irre

While Michelle Obama was a harsh critic of Donald Trump on the campaign trail, the first lady says in an interview that she is supportive of the country's incoming new leader.

Just when you thought lawmakers can't be any more out of touch with the cybers, a South Carolina representative comes along to lower the bar of technological competence. As  GoUpstate  reports , State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, pre-filed the " Human Trafficking Prevention Act " before

So who exactly are the party of the bullies, the intolerant, the haters, the extremist? It certainly is not the party supporting President-elect Trump.

One of the most shameful aspects of intellectual conservatism is the movement’s affinity for Ayn Rand. The Russian philosopher has been cited by several prominent Republicans, including Paul Ryan, …