ActRight

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hints that President Obama probably found out about the Hillary Clinton email scandal from the media.

The ABC Family drama The Fosters made television history Monday night for featuring the youngest ever dramatized gay kiss, as characters Jude and Connor, both 13, locked lips after some awkward flirting. Watch the scene below: The show’s creator, Peter

Hillary Clinton appears to be running as some kind of champion of feminism in her unannounced bid for the presidency. The trouble is, she’s no champion for the cause. If we take a ride back 20 years to the 1990s, Hillary was involved in the most orchestrated and vicious victim-blaming campaigns against women in recent history. She spent years defending husband Bill from accusations that he raped, sexually assaulted or groped women. And even after he admitted publicly that he cheated on her, she stood by him. Why? The answer points to politics. Because while Hillary made her own way in the world during the 70s and 80s at a law firm, those doors opened for her after Bill was elected Arkansas attorney general. Prior to that, she was teaching criminal law at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville. Now, that could have led to her work at a prestigious law firm and then higher office (worked for President Obama), but her upward trajectory really started because her husband’s name was elevated.

Support The Channel! PATREON LINK: https://www.patreon.com/Gonzossm Is it still racist if im mexican I wonder ENJOY it fellas c: http://www.facebook.com/Gonz...

Mr. Jamiel Shaw - father of the late Jamiel Shaw II - testified February 25, 2014 at a Oversight Subcommittee Hearing Examining the Department of Homeland Se...

Hillary Clinton tones down her approach to the leading G.O.P. contender as her party is forced to consider the roots of his appeal to many.

Here in America, there are no massacres happening and white men are certainly not a minority, but white men are regularly passionately smeared, attacked and degraded in our country.

Almost everyone agrees that the poor quality of US mortgages before the financial crisis was to blame for the devastating events of 2008. In almost all media...

Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)....

Oh, Alec. Dear, demented, snarling, spitting, spewing, cussing, punching, one-man rage machine. How do you get away with it? Alec Baldwin, 60, my foe, my secret, guilty crush, was at it again Frida…

CNN's Don Lemon hosted a panel of guests Thursday night to discuss the truth behind the "Hands up, don't shoot" mantra adopted by Black Lives Matter protesters. Despite a lively discussion, CNN still does not seem to fully grasp the role it's own misleading coverage played in suppressing the truth.

In last week’s Revolting Truth satire video, I had some laughs with the idea of “debunking” Obama conspiracy theories. For the literal-minded among you who like to receive the message straight, the point was this: We don’t need conspiracy theories about this president. The facts we know for sure are worse than anything we can imagine.

The U.S. government says it’s all full-up at the San Ysidro port of entry and can’t process the caravan participants who are demanding asylum. They’ll have to wait their turn — or give up and remain in Mexico, or head home to Central America. Caravan organizers, though, vow to outlast the U.S. government.

Ignorance is the gun-control movement’s Achilles heel.

The scandal of it cannot be overstated: various Jewish leaders and philanthropists are prominent donors to The New Israel Fund, an organization which funds BDS and other anti-Israel initiatives.

Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto explains why young people need to organize and rise up against nihilistic postmodernism. The full video and event details are below the transcript: JORDAN PETERSON: I want to recommend a book first to everyone here: It is called Explaining Postmodernism by Steven Hicks. You need to understand postmodernism, because that's what you're up against. You're up against it far more than you know or think, and it's a much more well-developed and pervasive, pernicious, nihilistic, intellectually attractive doctrine then has come to public realization. It absolutely dominates the humanities and increasing the social sciences in universities. See someone once said, I can't remember it might be, Friedrich Nietzsche, said that everybody is the 'unconscious exponent of a dead philosopher' and fortunately the postmodern philosophers, most of them are dead, so that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean that their words aren't continually being spoken by people who are following in their wake. It's not like any given person is absolutely possessed by the spirit of postmodernism, because often they're not educated enough to know all the details of what it is that has them in their grip, but if you get 20 of them together and they're all 5% influenced by the postmodernist ethos, you basically have the spirit of the mob. It's a mouthpiece for that particular philosophical doctrine. And if you understand the doctrine then you understand why things are progressing the way that they are progressing. So I'm going to tell you little bit about doctrine, because it's not optional to understand this. This is crucial to understand this, you can't underestimate the power of ideas and also the words, of course, because ideas are expressed in words. See the postmodernists completely reject structure of Western civilization. And I mean completely, so I can give you an example, in one term -- Jacques Derrida. He is head trickster for the postmodernist movement, and he regarded Western culture -- let's call it the patriarchy -- as phallogocentric. Phallo comes from phallus, and so that's the insistence that what you see in Western cultures is the consequence of the male-dominated oppressive self-serving society. You might say societies do tend to be self-serving, and people in power do tend to act in their best interests, but a tendency is not an absolute. That uis one of the things that these people do continually. There are no shortage of flaws in the manner in which we have structured our society and compared to any hypothetical utopia, it is an absolutely dismal wreck. But compared to the rest of the world, and the plight of other societies throughout the history of mankind, we're doing pretty damn well, and we should be happy to be living in society we're living in. So the first thing that you might want to know about Postmodernism is that it doesn't have a shred of gratitude -- and there's something topologically wrong with a person that doesn't have any gratitude, especially if they live in what so far is the best of all possible worlds. So if you're not grateful, you're driven by resentment, and resentment is the worst emotion that you can possibly experience, apart from arrogance. Arrogance, resentment, and deceit. There is an evil triad for you. And if you're bitter about everything that's happening around you, despite the fact that you're bathed in wealth, then there is something absolutely wrong with you. The black community in the United States is the 18th wealthiest community -- the 18th wealthiest nation on the planet. That doesn't mean there is no such a thing as relative poverty, which matters. It is an important political economic issue, and it is very difficult to deal with. But absolute wealth matters too. Western societies have been absolutely remarkable in their ability to generate and distribute wealth. As you can tell by just looking around, giving a brief bit of consideration for the absolute miracle that even a building like this represents. So you have to educate yourself about postmodernism. So here's what the postmodernists believe: They don't believe in the individual. That's the logos. Remember, Western culture is Phallogocentric. Logo is logos. That's partly the Christian word, but is also partly the root word of logic. Okay, they don't believe in logic. They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. They don't believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is logos -- again, they don't believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. So the reason they don't let people who they don't agree with speak on campus, is because they don't agree with letting people speak. You see it's not part of the ethos. Okay, so what else do they believe or not believe? They believe that since you don't have an individual identity, your fundamental identity is group fostered, and that means that you're basically an exemplar of your race. Hence, white privilege. Or you're an exemplar of your gender, or your sex, or your ethnicity, or you're an exemplar of however you can be classified so that you are placed in the position of a victim agaisnt the oppressor. Because that's the game, and it's a post-Marxist sleight-of-hand. Right? Before, the Marxist notion was that the world was a battleground between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that failed to have any philosophical or ethical standing that argument after the working class actually saw its standard of living massively elevated as a consequence of Western corporate democracy/Western free enterprise democracy, and also began, and also as a consequence of the revelations of everything terrible that happened and every bloody country that ever dared to make equity and the Marxist Communist dogma part of their fundamental structure -- right, nothing but murderousness and repression, and so by the 1970s, it was evident that that gig was up. And so the postmodernist Marxists just basically pulled a sleight-of-hand, and said, 'Okay if it's not the poor against the rich than it's the oppressed against the oppressor.' We'll just re-divide the sub-populations in ways that make our bloodied philosophy continue in its movement forward, and that's where we are now. So for the postmodernists the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups. They do not communicate with one another, because they can't. All there is is a struggle for power, and if you're in the predator group, which means you're successful, than you better look out, because you're not exactly welcome. Not exactly welcome, and neither are your ideas. So that's what you're up against. I would say it's time for conservatives to stop apologizing for being conservatives. You don't apologize to these people. It's a big mistake. They read apology as an admission of guilt. You don't apologize, and you don't back down. You young people out there who are university students, you need to take over the student unions, you need to take them back, because there absolute snake pits, and have been since the 1990s. With regards to the universities, I thought at one point that the best thing to do would be to cure their funding by 25% and let them fight amongst themselves for the remnants, because it would force universities to decide exactly what's important and what isn't. So I would say the humanities, and much of the social sciences have turned into a postmodernist neo-Marxist playground for radicals. The scholarship is terrible. 80% of humanities papers are not cited once. Once! And so what that means is that they write papers for each other, and they sell them to libraries, and that's a how the publishers are making money. No one reads them, but the publishers can print them and the libraries have to buy them -- And they are buying them with your tax money. And so all of you who are sitting here are funding a postmodern radical neo-Marxist agenda that has its roots in the university, and in your tax money is going towards it. And if you want proof of that. Just go online and look at the websites, especially of disciplines like 'women's studies' which is pathological right to the core. But it's not just women studies, it is all the ethnic studies groups, it is anthropology, it is sociology, social work, and most of all, it's education. And OISE, for example, in Ontario is perhaps apart from the Ontario human rights commission, the most dangerous institution in Canada. It should it should be defunded, it is as simple as that. They don't do the research they purport to do. They're not interested at all in education. They are interested in the indoctrination of people as young as they can get their hands on, so to speak. Our society needs to figure out how to stop shunting public tax money to radical left-wing activists. If we were doing that for the radical right-wing activists, there would be an absolute storm, but it's happening since the 1960s and needs to stop. So that's what conservatives and also liberals --true liberals in the English sense-- are up against me. What's happened also as a consequence of this postmodern neo-Marxist intellectual invasion, is the center keeps moving way to the right now, so if you're a classical liberal, you've become a conservative. And so for all of you are interested pursuing the conservative agenda. There's a lot of classic liberals that you could be talking to. And then finally with regards to talking to young people. You finally have something to sell to them. It is not easy to sell conservatism to young people, because they want to change things up. That's not what conservatives want to do, they want to maintain things. Well now you got something to sell -- you can sell them freedom of speech, and you can tell sell them responsibility. The left is selling them rights, you can sell them responsibility. I can tell you, because I received many letters of this sort ... young people are absolutely starving for someone to provide them with a sense of responsibility, and say look here, here's something worth living for, man. You can find meaning in life with freedom, but freedom. Freedom is a chaotic sort of meaning, right, and freedom isn't sort of thing makes people happy. It is the sort of thing people troublesome -- troubled. Because freedom expands your series of choices, and that makes you nervous and uncertain, so but responsibility is another's not to say that that's a bad thing. It's a good thing but it requires that you shoulder the responsibility of the freedom but responsibility per se is what gives your life meaning, genuine meaning in the face of suffering. And young people is really there starving for that. I've been teaching young people for 30 years, and mostly what I've been teaching them about is responsibility. Like, you're heirs to a great tradition. It's not perfect. Obviously. But apparently there's nothing else like it, that's ever been produced, and it's represents a tiny minority of the human polities, most of which are are run by murderous antisocial psychopathic thugs, and seriously, and so what kind of alternative is that? We've got this beacon of freedom and wealth in the West, which works, although it doesn't work perfectly. Ad one of one of the responsibilities of young people is to find out what's at the core of that, the paramount importance of the individual, and the divinity of speech, man. That's something to sell its what our whole culture is predicated on. In this session at the 2017 Manning Centre Conference (February 23-25 in Ottawa), Professor Jordan Peterson, Professor Gad Saad and John Carpay share their thoughts on how to respond to those trying to suppress free speech on Canadian campuses.

Support for, or opposition to, mass immigration is apparently a class issue, not an ethnic or racial issue. Elites more often support lenient immigration policies; the general public typically opposes them. At the top of the list are Mexico’s elites. Illegal immigration results in an estimated $25 billion sent back in remittances to Mexico each year. The Mexican government worries more about remittances, the country’s No. 1 source of foreign exchange, than it does about its low-paid citizens who are in the U.S., scrimping to send money back home. Remittances also excuse the Mexican government from restructuring the economy or budgeting for anti-poverty programs. #ad#Mexico sees the U.S. the way 19th-century elites in this country saw the American frontier: as a valuable escape hatch for the discontented and unhappy, who could flee rather than stay home and demand long-needed changes. American employers in a number of industries — construction, manufacturing, hospitality, and others — have long favored illegal immigration. Low-wage labor cuts costs: The larger the pool of undocumented immigrants, the less pressure to raise wages. That was why Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers in the 1970s occasionally patrolled the southern border in its vigilante-style “illegals campaign” to keep out undocumented immigrants while opposing guest-worker programs. RELATED: Trump’s Immigration Disaster Moreover, the additional social expense associated with millions of undocumented workers — in rising health-care, legal, education, and law-enforcement costs — is usually picked up by the public taxpayer, not by employers. Ethnic elites also favor lax immigration policies. For all the caricatures of the old melting pot, millions of legal immigrants still rapidly assimilate, integrate, and intermarry. Often within two generations of arrival, they blend indistinguishably into the general population and drop their hyphenated and accented nomenclature. But when immigration is mostly illegal, in great numbers, and without ethnic diversity, assimilation stalls. Instead, a near-permanent pool of undocumented migrants offers a political opportunity for activists to provide them with collective representation. Elites have ways of navigating around the downsides of illegal immigration. If the borders were closed to illegal immigration, then being Hispanic would soon be analogous to being Italian-, Greek-, or Portuguese-American in terms of having little prognostic value in predicting one’s political outlook. The continual flow of indigent new arrivals distorts statistics on poverty and parity, prompting ethnic elites in politics, journalism, and higher education to seek redress for perennial income and cultural imbalances. Offering affirmative action to a third-generation Hispanic American who does not speak Spanish apparently is seen as one way to help thousands of recently arrived impoverished immigrants from Oaxaca, Mexico, find parity. #share#High-income American elites likewise have largely favored illegal immigration for a variety of predicable reasons. The professional class likes having low-wage “help” to clean the house, cook meals, help take care of kids and elders, and tend the lawn. Such outsourcing usually is not affordable for the middle and lower classes. Elites have ways of navigating around the downsides of illegal immigration. They can avoid crowded schools and low-income neighborhoods, and they can easily pay the higher taxes that can result from illegal immigration. RELATED: NR Explainer: The Supreme Court Challenge to Executive Amnesty Support for lax immigration policies also offers psychological penance for essentially living a life of apartheid. An elite can avoid living in integrated neighborhoods or sending his children to diverse schools, but he can square that circle by voicing theoretical support for immigrant amnesty and sanctuary cities. We see such hypocrisy from proponents of loosened immigration policies such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Univision personality Jorge Ramos, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. #related#Who does not benefit from mass illegal immigration? Mostly the poor, minorities, and the lower-middle class. They are not employers, but rather compete with undocumented immigrants for low-wage jobs. They usually clean their own houses and do their own yardwork. They cannot afford to send their children to a different school when theirs becomes overcrowded. They cannot afford the increased taxes needed for social support of millions of new arrivals. Donald Trump tried to demagogue illegal immigration along ethnic lines. But the issue is not where illegal immigrants come from or who they are, but rather their effect on the struggling working classes already here, comprising all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Prune away the rhetoric and the issue becomes simple: Elites profit from high-volume illegal immigration, while most other U.S. citizens support immigration only when it is legal, measured, and diverse. — Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected]. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

"[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracY."

Exactly.

The toughest job in politics these days is defending Hillary Clinton, mocked brilliantly by The Post as the “Deleter of the Free World.” Her beleaguered defenders, as they retreat behind the bunker...

Though some may think Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s positions on amnesty and Common Core make him a liberal, Bush claimed to Iowans on Friday that there is “nothing” in his record that would suggest that he is a moderate. In

Gay and liberal groups at The George Washington University have demanded that funding for GW-YAF, a chapter affiliate of Young America’s Foundation, be revoked for the club’s daring to stand up for religious freedom.

The media circus is gone, but mess they left behind remains.

It was only a matter of time before libertarianism jumped the shark. The childishly optimistic sect of the liberty movement is moving past pot legalization and gay marriage. Their detente with libe...

Last week, Dr. Ben Carson, a possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate, stepped onto unstable political ground. Asked whether he believes that “being gay is a choice,” Carson stated that he “absolutely” did