ActRight

Boris Johnson has criticised the US president Barack Obama and suggested his attitude to Britain might be based on his “part-Kenyan” heritage and “ancestral dislike of the British empire”. Writing a column for The Sun newspaper the outgoing Mayor of London recounted a story about a bust of Winston Churchill purportedly being removed from White House.

Learn more about Ted Cruz: www.tedcruz.org Follow Ted: twitter.com/tedcruz Like Ted: fb.com/tedcruzpage Ted’s Instagram: instragram.com/cruzforpresident Dona...

Last year, a faction of the feminist Left discovered that it was being oppressed by the absence of a woman on at least one piece of America’s paper currency. After much baying from activists, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has struck upon a reasonable compromise. Lew announced on Wednesday that the place of Alexander Hamilton, currently experiencing a historical renascence, on the $10 bill is safe. Instead, Harriet Tubman, the great abolitionist, will replace Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill, and the seventh president will be moved to the back. #ad#Tubman is an admirable choice. Not only was she a courageous chaperone along the Underground Railroad, responsible for escorting more than 300 slaves to freedom; she was also a scout and spy for the Union Army, the first woman in American history to lead a military raid (against Combahee Ferry, in South Carolina, where she helped liberate more than 700 slaves), a Republican, a devout Christian, and a staunch defender of the right to bear arms. Andrew Jackson, for his part, was a giant of American history, and the animating spirit of the Democratic party. But moods change, and in the current public consciousness, Jackson’s considerable flaws have come to outweigh his also considerable merits. If there is a reason to remove Jackson from the currency, perhaps it should simply be that he hated paper money. RELATED: What They Didn’t Teach You in School about Harriet Tubman Meanwhile, Lew’s compromise leaves Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. And as long as great Americans adorn our currency, it would be difficult to think of a person more deserving than Hamilton, who not only was one of the original American rags-to-riches stories but was also, as the first secretary of the Treasury, responsible for establishing the national financial structure that facilitated the greatest engine of prosperity in human history: the American economy. If Hamilton does not deserve a place on our money, who does? #share#Unfortunately, though, this whole episode has been a product less of considered opinions than of ideological whims. Hamilton became a target not out of any principled opposition, but because feminists decided that it was time for our currency to boast “a woman,” and the $10 bill was next due to be redesigned, in 2019. (Incidentally, Hamilton also was saved by timing: the fortuitous opening of a hit Broadway musical about his life.) The notes and coins of our currency are not national monuments — they are periodically redesigned to reflect shifts in national values, and the American public clearly wants currency that showcases a more diverse array of Americans who have contributed to the ongoing work of winning liberty and justice for all — but decisions about who adorns our currency shouldn’t be made to accommodate momentary fancies. This whole episode has been a product less of considered opinions than of ideological whims. Resisting that temptation will be harder, given the slate of changes the Treasury Department is planning beyond the $20 bill. According to Lew, the $10 bill will be redesigned to display on its back, instead of the Treasury building, portraits of leaders of the women’s-suffrage movement. And the back of the $5 bill will be refashioned to include images of Martin Luther King Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, and opera singer–cum–civil-rights activist Marian Anderson. Each of those persons made valuable contributions to the American way of life. But printing a Who’s Who volume on the currency is sure to prompt calls to include a representative from this cause and that one. After all, why not Cesar Chavez? Why not Harvey Milk? And it prompts straightforward aesthetic concerns: Who wants a dollar bill that looks like a photo album? This contretemps highlights, once again, the extent to which the histories of particular groups and interests are now so often preferred to a larger, unifying American history. The current administration may have satisfied progressive demands momentarily. But we’ll be fighting this battle again, soon enough. You can put money on it.

What are political conventions for? If you’ve ever been to one, you might think the purpose is for attendees to schmooze, drink, and drink some more. That holds true both for the delegates and for the journalists, who usually outnumber them by at least three to one. #ad#But that’s not actually why political conventions exist. They’re sort of like volunteer fire departments that almost never get a call. It’s not that the firefighters don’t want to put out fires, but until they’re needed, they’re pretty happy to play cards, watch movies, and eat chili. They understand that when the call actually comes, the game ends, the TV goes off, and the boots go on. Originally, conventions were partly a technological solution to a real problem. Phones didn’t exist and mail was too slow to coordinate the desires of the party faithful across a whole nation. (Also, few negotiators want to put all of their bargaining positions in writing.) You needed lots of face-to-face meetings. By the 1960s, the telephone started to erode this function of conventions, as my American Enterprise Institute colleague Michael Barone has written. Barone also notes that the media took one of the key jobs away from party bosses: counting delegates. The first media delegate count wasn’t until 1968, by CBS News. Not long thereafter, conventions started to resemble infomercials. A political party throws a surprise party for the nominee that isn’t a surprise, because the nominee was determined well before the convention. In fact, the nominee is actually the party-planner-in-chief, choosing who sings his praises and when. The ending is no more in doubt than the question of whether the Ginsu knife in the TV ad will really be able to cut through the can. But the core purpose of conventions never disappeared. It just got buried under all of the bunting and balloons. Even the communication function of the convention was a means to an end, not the end itself. The real goal was to pick a nominee who could unify the party. That’s it. It wasn’t to pick a nominee who could win in November. That’s a huge consideration, but it was only one (very important) factor in deliberations over who should get the nomination. Barry Goldwater didn’t get the Republican nomination in 1964, nor George McGovern the Democratic nomination in 1972, because they were seen as the best candidates to win a general election. They got the nomination because that is who the delegates, informed by voters, wanted as their standard-bearers. Ideally, the candidate who satisfies both criteria — speaks for us and is most electable — is the nominee. But that doesn’t always happen. This is precisely the dilemma the GOP is facing in July. Donald Trump may indeed end up being the nominee, but he’s nowhere close to the most electable candidate the GOP could offer, and he’s easily the most divisive choice the party could make. Ted Cruz is better on both scores – I would be happy to see him get the nomination – but he also has problems on both fronts. The nominating system was set up to see who can unify the party. John Kasich has a theory that he is more electable – and he may be right, though I’m unconvinced – but there’s very little evidence that many Republicans outside of Ohio want him to be their champion. The current debate about the GOP nominating process (It’s rigged! It’s undemocratic!) is largely hogwash. If it’s rigged, it’s rigged in favor of the front-runner, which is why Trump’s share of delegates is higher than his share of votes. The nominating system was set up not as some reality-show contest to see who can get the most delegates. It was set up to see who can unify the party. The primary system was introduced to give voters the first whack at that task. (But they didn’t always have the final say: Robert A. Taft got more votes than Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952, but Ike got the nomination.) If Trump fails to get 1,237 delegates – still the most likely outcome – that will mean the voters collectively failed to find a unifier. That failure is the alarm that calls the firefighters – i.e., delegates — to duty. Whether they pick Cruz or Kasich or someone else, it will not be some undemocratic “theft.” It will be their effort to do their job: unify the party. I wish them luck. — 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 GOP front-runner says transgender people should "go and use the bathroom they feel is appropriate."

LIKE my Facebook https://www.facebook.com/JoeySalads Social Experiment - Prank - Pranks - Political Experiment - Politics Don't forget to Subscribe! Subscrib...

Steven Crowder (Host, Louder with Crowder) and Dave Rubin discuss their comedy backgrounds and libertarianism. ***Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/subscript...

Ted Cruz went after Donald Trump on Thursday for saying transgender people should be able to use whichever bathroom they want.

Steven Crowder (Host, Louder with Crowder) joins Dave Rubin, discussing his views on the left vs the right, his support for Ted Cruz and his dislike of Donal...

Political correctness is wrong when it affects Trump. The rest of us peasants should just shut up and toe the line.

Steven Crowder (Host, Louder with Crowder) and Dave Rubin discuss the abortion debate and the climate change debate. ***Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/sub...

Perfect analogy.

Austrian president Heinz Fischer said Wednesday his country has seen more asylum applications in 2015 than it saw births, raising fears about the impact of the refugee crisis on Europe’s demographics.

A Mexican Marine has made a sport out of hunting top cartel bosses and has found an interesting past-time.

Relatives of two of the teenage girls who recently died when a car drove into a St. Petersburg pond claim the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office issued a press...

CAIR-linked Hamas claims jihad bombing of Jerusalem bus Brussels jihad murderer worked at Zaventem airport for 5 years, 50 Islamic State supporters still work there

Remember this when you encounter the soldiers of islam

Leading liberal thinkers reveal what they like about contemporary conservatism.

State's top lawyer: Brown exceeded his authority.

Less expensive and widely available devices can assist with hearing, but the hearing aid industry contends these products differ greatly from theirs.

Ted Cruz ripped The Donald this morning on his new liberal position on Transgender using whatever bathroom they choose. He simply asks the audience, have we gone stark raving nuts? Watch: If I can …

The Tednado has struck again with this trio of commercials taking aim at the privileged frontrunners of the GOP and the Democrats: And another: This one is more general: Pretty pretty pretty good&#…

Mark Levin was outraged by Trump’s comments this morning that transgenders should be able to use whatever bathroom they choose. He said this isn’t even remotely a Republican idea, that …

(((Subscribe))) now for more! http://bit.ly/1QHJwaK Boxer Manny Pacquiao assaulted outside a Los Angeles restaurant by a gay extremist for posting a Bible ve...

“.@realDonaldTrump on NC transgender bathroom law: “I think that local communities & states should make the decision””