ActRight

President Obama's proudest accomplishment is increasing the number of Americans with health insurance. A better idea would be to help people escape government care altogether. As I wrote after my...

The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces are testing a massive new intercontinental ballistic missile that could overwhelm U.S. strategic defenses. The weapon will be the largest nuclear delivery system ever made and will be able to carry up to 15 MIRVs (multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles) or in plain English, nuclear warheads.

Ever since Donald Trump ascended to the role of presumptive Republican nominee, those of us in the #NeverTrump movement have come under heavy fire. Using the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency as a threat, the more enthusiastic passengers aboard the Trump Train have attempted to pull us onboard. If we don’t vote for Trump, they insist, we’ll be turning the White House over to Hillary! #ad#This is a weak argument for any number of reasons: that Trump is unfit for office of any sort, regardless of his opponent, based on both policy and character; that Trump is a leftist who will claw the face off the conservative movement and then wear it around as his own, Hannibal Lecter–style; that Trump is a vile authoritarian who could mobilize his alt-right, white-supremacist populist base to gut whatever is left of the Constitution, even while bearing the Republican mantle; that Trump will lose anyway, so why smear ourselves with the embarrassing stink of his candidacy for generations to come? But there is a flaw in #NeverTrump. Its name implies that Trump cannot do anything to win over conservatives who don’t support him now. That’s not the case. #NeverTrump simply means that if on November 8 Donald Trump is who he is today and who he has been during this campaign, we cannot vote for him. We can still be wooed by real change. New evidence provides the basis for revised decision-making. RELATED: Where #NeverTrump Went Wrong in the Nomination Fight  So, what new evidence would change our minds? First, a change in temperament. Trump has displayed instability, unwillingness to learn, and deep-seated arrogance manifest in an unearned sense of knowledge. His consummate belief in his own abilities as a dealmaker, combined with his unwarranted trust in his own ability to cut through thorny policy thickets with broad strokes, makes him ignorant and dangerous. His absolute disdain for the Constitution rolls from him in waves; he’d hate it if he bothered to read it. All of this also makes him untrustworthy, even when he makes promises conservatives like. This means that when he promises to build a wall, conservatives shrug — after all, he told the New York Times that everything is negotiable. It means that when he pledges to cut taxes (and then walks it back) and fight political correctness (then talks about restricting the First Amendment to target the press), conservatives shrug. It means that when he says he’s pro-life (then says Planned Parenthood does wonderful work) or that he’s pro–religious freedom (then backs government forcing private businesses to allow men into women’s rooms), conservatives shrug — well, what else would we expect? RELATED: The Scariest Reason Trump Won Thus far, every attempt to “change” Trump has failed. Trump has the self-control of a two-year-old, and approximately the same vocabulary. Trump has repeatedly stated that he can be “presidential” if he wants to, but he seems to believe that “presidential” means soporific. Every promise to pivot from his childish antics is quickly followed by a childish outburst. Just weeks ago, Trump ousted his hands-on campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, for the professional Putin-charmer Paul Manafort — and after Manafort informed the man he called “Donald” that he had to change, Trump replaced him with Lewandowski again. Lewandowski promptly thanked “Mr. Trump,” and Trump went back to being his less-than-charming self, citing his desire to be “politically incorrect.” “Presidential” doesn’t mean politically correct, however. It means acting with forethought, studying situations before taking a position (let alone remarking upon them), recognizing that words and actions have consequences. It means an end to Trump’s patented strategy of taking the most extreme, simplistic position and then walking it back if he experiences resistance. It means shifting his personal constitution to countenance the boundaries of the United States Constitution. It means being an adult. #share#Now, there are still vicious adults. Some of us in the #NeverTrump movement don’t mind Trump’s branding skill, or his teenage insult-throwing, or his off-the-cuff remarks. That’s his charm. But style must follow substance, not the other way around. And even style has its limits. There is no excuse for insulting POWs or the disabled or women. That’s not political incorrectness. That’s just being a jackass. RELATED: Trump Unfit … or Unfit Compared to What? So, Trump would have to spend the rest of this campaign proving that he has the capacity to change his character — and the capacity to listen to his advisers. Then, he’d have to prove his conservatism by surrounding himself with the right people. First, of course, he’d have to stop talking like someone who sees conservatism as a burden rather than a philosophy of truth. This Sunday, he said that the Republican party is the Republican party, “not the conservative party.” True — but that doesn’t give conservatives much reason for hope. Trump sees his ad hoc politics, his self-centered tyrannical tendencies, his unpredictable vulgarity as features, not bugs. If Trump started talking about conservatism — unlikely — he’d then have to prove that he believes it and isn’t just manipulating. He could do that by naming his cabinet long before the election. Rudy Giuliani has apparently already been picked for secretary of homeland security. That’s a good start. The other cabinet picks — Chris Christie for attorney general, Ben Carson for secretary of health and human services — are less inspiring, given that Christie has become Renfield to Trump’s Dracula, and Carson is a walking corpse, his moral core ripped from his chest like a cast member from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Some have suggested Ted Cruz for the Supreme Court; that wouldn’t hurt. How about John Bolton for secretary of state, Tom Cotton for secretary of defense, Rand Paul for Treasury secretary? Finally, he’d have to mirror actual conservative policies. Not once. Not sporadically. Consistently. He’d have to make an open pro-life pledge, as Mitt Romney did; the pro-life pledge should include the nomination of only justices who would revoke Roe v. Wade. He’d have to stand in favor of religious-freedom restoration laws. He’d have to stop his nonsense about revoking American debt and destroying American trade. He’d have to cut the isolationist foreign-policy nonsense. #related#If he did even half of these things — and if he changed his character — we could jump on the Trump Train. But that’s a big ask of a 69-year-old alleged billionaire who has won the Republican nomination on the basis of his foibles. He sees his ad hoc politics, his self-centered tyrannical tendencies, his unpredictable vulgarity as features, not bugs. He seems much more enthusiastic about declaring war on conservatives than about wooing them; he’s already said we’re unnecessary. If he continues along the path he has charted, Trump is about to find out whether his hypothesis — that he can utterly unmoor conservatism and constitutionalism from the Republican party, and chug along to victory — is true. We certainly hope it isn’t. America needs a conservative party, not another leftist party run by a leftist demagogue merely masquerading as a conservative. Trump can still woo us, if he’s willing to change. But he bears the burden of proof. — Ben Shapiro is the author of Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.

Future President Clinton may well impose new restrictions on guns. Getting Americans to obey them will be a tougher trick.

A fascinating, frightening glimpse into the activities of the Bias Response Team.

Don't count on seeing The Donald's tax returns even after the audit ends. We reported six weeks ago, thanks to Trump spilling the beans, he thinks “only a fool would give a tax return …”

Trump's their dynamite, not their new developer.

Ignorance or Willful Intent? Leave a comment and let me know. Please subscribe if you want to show me you want more content like this. http://www.breitbart.c...

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Hillary Clinton when it comes to her husband's escapades. "The kitchen sink," in this case, is Jeffery Epstein's “Sex Slave Island” and President Bill Clinton’s ties to it.

It was a hedge fund portfolio pitched by Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, as an opportunity to bet on a Greek economic revival.  Now, two years later, the Greece-focused fund is shutting down, after losing nearly 90% of its value. Investors were told last month that the fund would close. The fund, Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, had raised $25 million from investors to buy Greek bank stocks and government debt.

‘Let no one be mistaken: Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised, and discarded,” former Texas governor Rick Perry declared ten months ago. Trump’s candidacy, Perry added, represents “a toxic mix of demagoguery and mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican party to perdition if pursued.” Lest you’re thrown off by the alliteration, “perdition” means eternal damnation in Hell. #ad#Perry has since had an epiphany, selling his political soul for a seat on the Trump Train. He even says he’s open to being Trump’s running mate, which would make him a co-pilot (or co-conductor?) leading us down the tracks to Hell. (“Can I blow the whistle, Mr. Trump?”) As Thomas More might say, “Why Rick, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but to be Donald Trump’s valet?” Taking his words literally, Perry wants to make a deal with the devil. In this war on cancer, Perry wants to help cancer win “any way I can.” Perry is far from alone in his hypocrisy. With the exception of Senator Ben Sasse, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and a handful of others (including, I hope, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio), the Republican aristocracy is for the most part bending its knee to the new king, proving that much of the “establishment” is exactly as craven as Trump always claimed. RELATED: Trump’s Backtrackers: Republican Politicians Go Wobbly Those who do not yield can hear the executioner’s axe sharpening against the wheel. Trump has dispatched one of his top minions, Sarah Palin, to punish Ryan for his effrontery in second-guessing Trump’s commitment to conservatism. She said she’ll work to defeat Ryan’s reelection bid this fall. “His political career is over,” Palin said on CNN. She’ll probably fail, but the message is clear. The litmus test in the new Republican party boils down to loyalty, not to a principle or conviction, but to a man: Trump. #share#It’s a cult of personality, pure and simple. One cannot even agree with Trump on his “policies,” because that is like committing to the blob in a lava lamp. Less than a week after Trump became the presumptive nominee, he’d already thrown his tax plan in the dustbin of history — the very tax plan that Trump could never talk about intelligently, which nonetheless seduced, or suckered, so many supply-siders to his cause. The GOP platform can now be written on a bumper sticker: “In Trump We Trust.” RELATED: After Trump, Conservatives Must Continue to Explore Their Options That was the upshot of Trump’s weekend interviews. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Trump if he needed party unity, the businessman shrugged. Unity’s nice, Trump said. But he doesn’t need it. He’s more interested in winning the loyalty of Bernie Sanders’s socialist brigades than he is in persuading conservatives he’s one of them. “I have to stay true to my principles also,” Trump told Stephanopoulos. “And I’m a conservative, but don’t forget: This is called the Republican party, not the Conservative party.” #related#When Trump says “I’m a conservative,” picture a car salesman insisting, “I’m a Tito Puente fan too.” It’s just something he’s saying to close the deal. As for his adamantine principles, there is only one: The limelight belongs to him alone. (That is why Trump is reportedly considering speaking every night at the GOP convention.) Conservatives who still have the courage of Perry’s former convictions have no role in the party so long as Trump’s running it. He has admitted that he doesn’t want or need Reaganite conservatives; he’d rather rely on the rank-and-file supporters of a socialist instead. For conservatives, party unity is another way of saying “suicide pact.” I will never vote for Hillary Clinton because she believes things I can never support. I will never vote for Donald Trump because he’s a bullying fool who believes in nothing but himself. The conservative movement can wait out a Clinton presidency intact. But Perry was right. A Trump presidency is a ride straight to perdition, with a capital H. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review​. You can write to him by e-mail at [email protected], or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

The father is fighting his estranged wife's effort to help the girl 'transition,' including use of hormone blockers.

President Obama's political appointees are not only celebrated by the media as the best and brightest America has to offer; they are promoted as being so bright that they are allowed to boast about how they masterfully manipulate the press, like sculpting a can of smelly, journalistic Play-Doh.

  If there is one thing we know about Donald Trump, it is that he wants to strengthen America’s borders and drive down immigration levels. So there is no small irony in the fact that the most likely end result of his insurgent presidential campaign will be the weakening of border enforcement and a drastic increase in immigration levels. True, Trump has helped make immigration one of the central issues in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and his success may well have stiffened the spine of anti-immigration conservatives. Yet Trump’s rhetoric has not just been heard by Republicans. It has also been heard by independents and Democrats. While it looks as though Trump’s rise has had virtually no effect on attitudes toward immigration among Republicans — a large majority of GOP voters believed that immigration levels should be decreased before Trump, and they feel the same way now — it has had a not insignificant effect on attitudes among Democrats, and in particular among the elite Democrats who set the party’s agenda. #ad#To be clear, Trump has not single-handedly made Democrats embrace high immigration levels. There has been a spike since last fall in the share of Democrats taking a pro-immigration stance, and Trump surely played a role there. But that’s only part of the story. Over the past decade, the gap in partisan perceptions of immigrants has widened, with Republicans taking an increasingly skeptical view of the virtues of mass immigration and Democrats moving in the opposite direction. For example, the share of Democrats believing that immigrants strengthen the country has climbed from 49 percent in 2006 to 78 percent in 2016, while it has gone from 34 percent to 35 percent among Republicans. What accounts for this longer-term shift among Democrats? There are a number of factors at work. The composition of the Republican and the Democratic electorates has changed over time, and as the salience of the immigration issue has increased, at least some anti-immigration Democrats and pro-immigration Republicans have presumably switched sides. Older voters tend to be more skeptical about immigration than younger voters are, and the Democratic coalition is somewhat younger than the Republican coalition. RELATED: America First: Immigration and Nationalism Unite Donald Trump’s Coalition Moreover, naturalized immigrants are more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, and naturalized immigrants are, not surprisingly, more pro-immigration, not least out of a desire to bring their family members to the U.S. Family immigration accounts for two-thirds of all lawful immigration, and any serious effort to reduce immigration levels would necessarily involve making it more difficult for naturalized immigrants to bring, say, adult daughters and sons into the country. Recently, the economists Anna Maria Mayda, Giovanni Peri, and Walter Steingress found that as the share of immigrants in the adult population of a given U.S. state increases, so does the Democratic vote share. The main driver of this phenomenon is that naturalized immigrants vote for Democrats at higher rates than natives do. While some pro-immigration conservatives attribute this pattern to the immigration issue alone, the fact that households headed by naturalized immigrants tend to have lower incomes than those headed by natives, and to rely more heavily on safety-net programs, undoubtedly contributes to it. As long as most immigrants have below-average incomes, it stands to reason that they will favor the party of redistribution. Trump’s noxious tone has made it much harder for restrictionists to win new allies. So why blame Trump for the immigration-policy disaster to come? While Trump’s champions insist that their candidate has shifted the mainstream conversation on immigration to the right, I would argue that Trump’s noxious tone has made it much harder for restrictionists to win new allies. Some voters who might have otherwise been open to calls for more-stringent border enforcement and a more selective immigration policy have recoiled from Trump’s thinly veiled appeals to racial and ethnic resentment. This is true among Democrats and independents, but it is also true among anti-Trump Republicans. As long as Trump is the most visible figure on the anti-immigration right, extremists on the other side of the immigration issue seem sober-minded by comparison. Early in March, Univision’s Jorge Ramos, a fervent advocate of mass immigration who also happens to be a news anchor, asked Hillary Clinton to promise that she would not deport unauthorized-immigrant children. Clinton made that pledge, and she went even further, telling Ramos that she did not want to deport the families of unauthorized-immigrant children, either. This has long been a goal of the partisans of amnesty — to extend deportation relief beyond those who entered the United States unlawfully as children, to their parents. Clinton has accepted this goal without hesitation, making it a central part of her immigration agenda. At one point she said that she would deport immigrants only if they had criminal records. Bernie Sanders followed suit. RELATED: Trump’s Border Wall Plan Is Ridiculous on Its Face One can imagine a different universe in which pragmatic Democrats questioned the wisdom of what amounts to an immigration free-for-all. If the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination say that they have no desire to deport immigrants without criminal records, are they not suggesting that we welcome all comers, whether they enter lawfully or otherwise? But have Clinton and Sanders been forced to answer for endorsing lawlessness at the border? Not at all. Instead, they seem eager to double down. Bernie Sanders will not be our next president. Nevertheless, his sharp change of course on immigration reflects a broader trend. Earlier in the campaign, in an interview with Ezra Klein, editor of the liberal news site Vox, Sanders objected to the idea of open borders, deriding it as part of an anti-labor agenda advanced by the Koch brothers, a rare instance of a Sanders utterance I find entirely sensible. He has since been keen to curry favor with immigration advocates, in recognition of their growing power in the Democratic coalition. It turns out that if you’re trying to win the nomination of a party that increasingly relies on the votes of struggling immigrants who depend on wage subsidies, Medicaid, and food stamps to lead decent lives, calls for limiting immigration aren’t going to fly. RELATED: Donald Trump’s Half-Serious, Half-Fantasy Immigration Plan No one understands this better than Hillary Clinton. During his first term, Bill Clinton sensed that anti-immigration sentiment was becoming more potent, and so he endorsed the findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, which backed modest reductions in legal-immigration levels and more-rigorous immigration-enforcement efforts. Almost immediately, Clinton met with a fierce backlash from pro-immigration groups on the left and the right, and he soon abandoned his flirtation with a more restrictionist stance. Instead, the Clinton administration backed the Citizenship USA initiative, designed to make it much easier for immigrants, including formerly unauthorized immigrants legalized under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, to naturalize. As Republicans in Congress fought to limit the access of recent immigrants to safety-net programs, a large wave of immigrants naturalized in part to oppose these measures through the political process. The politics of immigration had irrevocably changed, and Bill Clinton deftly switched sides. Hillary Clinton has clearly not forgotten the lessons of that era. Naturalized low-wage immigrants depend on public assistance, and as they have brought more of their similarly poor relatives with them to the U.S., these immigrants have become a bedrock Democratic constituency. #share#If Hillary Clinton is our next president, an outcome that is all but foreordained if Trump is the Republican nominee, it is a safe bet that her first big legislative push will be on immigration. She will characterize her victory over Trump as a repudiation of the restrictionist cause and a mandate for immigration legislation more permissive than the comprehensive immigration-reform bill backed by President Obama. Unlike Obama and George W. Bush, who felt obligated to make their pathways to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants seem onerous, Clinton has made it clear that she intends to make her pathway to citizenship as cheap and easy as possible. It is not obvious that conservatives in Congress, who could suffer major losses if Trump is their party’s presidential nominee, will be in a position to prevent such legislation from passing. Let’s assume that Clinton succeeds in establishing her immigration agenda as the law. By extending legal status to unauthorized immigrants and giving them a pathway to citizenship, Clinton will bring unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows and into America’s social safety net. Clinton has made it clear that she intends to make her pathway to citizenship as cheap and easy as possible. In 2013, the Migration Policy Institute found that almost one-third (32 percent) of unauthorized-immigrant adults lived in families below the poverty level, and 62 percent lived in families earning less than 200 percent of the poverty level. A narrow 51 percent majority of unauthorized-immigrant children lived in families earning less than the federal poverty level; 78 percent lived in families earning less than 200 percent of that level; and only 8 percent lived in families earning more than 400 percent of it. Moreover, only 30 percent of unauthorized-immigrant adults are proficient in English, a strong barrier in itself to upward mobility. In recognition of the fact that the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants are so poor, the Gang of Eight, a group of senators who unsuccessfully pushed for comprehensive reform, sought to win conservative support by proposing to bar immigrants granted provisional legal status from various safety-net programs. Leaving aside whether these restrictions would have been enforced in practice — I’m skeptical — it is hard to imagine Clinton backing such limits. The effects of new immigration legislation won’t stop there. Once these immigrants are granted citizenship, they will be able to sponsor family members. The 1986 amnesty, which legalized roughly 3 million unauthorized immigrants, led to a surge in family immigration. One assumes that legalizing as many as 10 million unauthorized immigrants would lead to a surge in family immigration that was quite a bit larger. And these immigrants would encounter a labor market far less hospitable to less-skilled workers than that of the 1980s and 1990s, when demand for such labor was comparatively high and real minimum wages were relatively low. By backing a steep increase in the federal minimum wage at the same time that she opens the floodgates to less-skilled immigration, Clinton would re-create the conditions seen in much of Europe, where immigrants have been priced out of the labor market by rigid regulations. #related#Whether or not Clinton succeeds in passing sweeping legislation, she has explicitly promised to shield virtually all unauthorized immigrants from deportation. In other words, she has promised that, under a Clinton administration, there will be no danger that the agencies charged with enforcing our immigration laws will do their job. Over time, the unauthorized immigrants whom Clinton will have essentially invited into the country will form families and give birth to citizen children. They will then become virtually impossible to remove. So far, conservatives haven’t given much thought to Hillary Clinton’s immigration agenda. To the extent that her views have been addressed at all, they’ve been treated as little more than campaign bluster. That is a mistake. Donald Trump’s success has made it far more likely that she will be our next president, and we need to start thinking very hard about what that means. — Reihan Salam is the executive editor at National Review. This article originally appeared in the May 9, 2016, issue of National Review. * National Review magazine content is typically available only to paid subscribers. Due to the immediacy of this article, it has been made available to you for free. To enjoy the full complement of exceptional National Review magazine content, sign up for a subscription today. A special discounted rate is available for you here.

A sneering Jon Stewart on Monday wondered, “When was America great?” The former Daily Show host appeared with David Axelrod at the University of Chicago and mocked conservatives. Connecting Donald Trump to the right, the comedian lectured, “He makes sense if you view it through the prism of talk radio.... Republicans, conservatives love America. They just hate, like, 50 percent of the people living in it.”

A former college student spoke out on On the Record after being labeled a "shady person of color" (SPOC) for speaking out against "safe spaces" on college campuses.

Trump supporters like him because he forcefully says the prejudicial stuff they believe

He observed, "They’re not discussing issues, they’re throwing bombs at each other."

AN Afghan migrant has been arrested by police after allegedly sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy in a changing room at a sports hall.

Future President Clinton may well impose new restrictions on guns. Getting Americans to obey them will be a tougher trick.

In California, Donald Trump has selected William Johnson as a delegate for the state. Johnson submitted his name and signed a pledge of loyalty to Trump?s campaign. There?s just one pro…

NEW YORK – Supporters of Hillary Clinton who attempt to deflect Donald Trump’s criticism in the ongoing “war on women” debate by insisting she is not to blame for her husband?s serial infidelity and alleged abuse miss the point, contend the authors of two recent books that present evidence of her role as an ?enabler.? [?]

As an 18-year-old conservative activist and lifelong Republican, I refuse to stand with the RNC and their nominee Donald Trump.

Why it's high time we define micro-treasons -- and take action against them.

New York may be the city that never sleeps – but lately, that’s just because all the sane people are being kept up at night by the latest nut-house proposal from the cultural left. Earlier this year, the New York City Commission For Human Rights announced that “employers, landlords, business owners, and the general public” could be fined up to $250,000 for “misgendering” transgender people. In other words, the Commission explains, “intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title” can result in such a fine.