ActRight

OPINION | Same press, same bias, eight years later.

Sen. Liz Warren Refuses to Disavow Madonna's Wish to 'Blow Up the White House'

In a highly disturbing move, the far-left Socialist Workers’ Student Society has this week made open calls for violence against any who oppose their...

Riding the global wave of populism, Marine Le Pen is now the front-runner to win the French Presidency. This interview provides great insight into the leader of the National Front party of France.

It is time that our society acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its Second Civil War. In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically, and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as the First World War once there was a Second World War, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War. This Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in one other critically important way: It has thus far been largely non-violent. But given the increasing left-wing violence such as riots, the violent taking over of college presidents’ offices, and the illegal occupation of state capitols, non-violence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War. There are those on both the left and the right who call for American “unity.” But these calls are either naïve or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the Right and liberals, but not between the Right and the Left. Liberalism – which was anti-Left, pro-American, and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of America, regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement, and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism – is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don’t call themselves conservative. The Left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism. Like the Left in every other country, the Left in America sees America as essentially a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, war-mongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation. Just as in Western Europe, the Left in America seeks to erase America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The Left suppresses free speech, wherever possible, for those who oppose it, labeling all non-Left speech “hate speech.” To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare was the greatest playwright, or Bach the greatest composer, you are a proponent of Dead White European Males and therefore racist. Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between Left and non-Left? Obviously, there cannot. There will be unity only when the Left vanquishes the Right or the Right vanquishes the Left. Using the First Civil War analogy, American unity was achieved only after the South was vanquished and slavery abolished. How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism – there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt – supposed to unite with “educators” who instruct elementary-school teachers to cease calling their students “boys and girls” because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its black minority that the greatest problems afflicting black Americans are all caused by white racism, “white privilege,” and “systemic racism”? With those who think that the nuclear-family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term “Islamic terrorist” is an expression of religious bigotry? This is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives, and the Right have to defeat the American Left. The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools – from elementary schools to high schools to the universities – and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news media; and how it has taken over the entertainment media. The conservative side has lost on every one of these fronts because it has rarely fought back with anything near the ferocity with which the Left fights. Name a Republican politician who has run against the Left, as opposed to running solely against his or her Democratic opponent. And nearly all American conservatives, people who are proud of America and affirm its basic tenets, readily send their children to schools that indoctrinate their children against everything the parents hold precious. A mere handful protest when their child’s teacher ceases calling their son a boy or their daughter a girl, or makes “slave owner” the defining characteristic of the Founding Fathers. With the defeat of the Left in the last presidential election, the defeat of the Left in two-thirds of the gubernatorial elections and in a majority of House and Senate elections, this is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives, and the Right have to defeat the American Left. But it will not happen until these groups understand that we are fighting for the survival of America no less than the Union troops were in the First Civil War. — Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com. © 2017 Creators.com

This weekend witnessed perhaps the dumbest political debate I’ve ever seen. It started with an act of bad-faith media trolling. Reporters noticed that Trump’s inauguration crowd was much smaller than one for Obama’s historically huge first inaugural and began tweeting pictures like this: Comparison: President Trump and Barack Obama’s #Inauguration crowds #DayOne https://t.co/bmm9G8zOUF pic.twitter.com/i8p4S51QOM — PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) January 20, 2017 The pictures filled Twitter, leaked into longer news stories, and became something like a liberal security blanket on a tough day. They wrapped themselves in memories of Obama’s glory to ease their pain. But who cares, really? Obama was the first black president. Washington is a deep-blue city. Of course he was going to have a huge crowd at his inaugural. Democrats generally pull the bigger crowds, especially when they end eight or more years of Republican rule. Given D.C.’s politics, holding a GOP inauguration there is comparable to the Chicago Cubs trying to hold their victory parade in downtown Cleveland. By now, however, we all know that Trump will respond to every attack, so he sent Sean Spicer out into the press room, where Spicer proceeded to utter a string of demonstrably false statements. On Day One in office. In a short press conference at which he refused to take questions, Spicer made false claims about crowd size, grass coverings, subway use, and security measures. Kellyanne Conway then defended Spicer, using an instantly unfortunate (and memorable) phrase, calling his claims “alternative facts.” The press was apoplectic. They were appalled that a press secretary would stand in front of the White House press corps and “lie.” He violated “norms.” His actions constituted a “breach of trust.” And these critiques were right. The entire press conference was ridiculous. It’s possible to defend against silly media attacks without lying. Spicer can do better, and he did do better in a generally uneventful press conference Monday afternoon. But here’s another thing that’s also true: Many of the same people who were appalled at Sean Spicer were at the same time trumpeting the allegedly “scandal-free” Obama administration, a presidency that featured “If you like your health-care plan you can keep it,” a scheme targeting tea-party groups that itself rested on an avalanche of lies and deceptions, serial lies about Benghazi, and deliberate lies to sell the Iran deal to a skeptical public. And that’s hardly a complete list. While there were certainly good reporters who did their best to hold the administration to account, outside conservative media there was nothing like the breathless, apocalyptic tweeting, writing, and speaking you see today. The cycle is so familiar, and the cynicism is breathtaking. In the Bush years, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. When Obama was president, dissent became “obstructionism.” Now that Trump is president, obstructionism is romanticized as the “resistance.” There are those who wave away callbacks to Obama-administration lies and media kid-glove treatments as “what-about-ism.” In other words, they say it’s no answer to our critiques of Trump’s misdeeds to note that other people have lied at other times. In a narrow sense, they’re correct. One administration’s lies don’t justify the next administration’s falsehoods. Partisan means winning every encounter, every news cycle, and every argument. Truth be damned. Fairness be damned. Law be damned. The larger truth, however, is that those with no credibility make poor critics. Given the recent past, media outrage at Spicer’s press conference starts to seem less like a principled stand for the truth than an attempt to manufacture outrage. Thus, we see the wearying pattern of the modern Trump media debate. The media call out his falsehoods and decry the erosion of norms. His defenders call out media hypocrisy but then are themselves often incapable of telling the truth. After all, to speak the truth means “giving in.” It means “not fighting.” Our politics is devolving into the pathetic spectacle of liars indignantly calling out liars for lying. Rule-breakers are outraged that other rule-breakers break rules. Norms that could be violated with impunity for “social justice” can’t be violated for “nationalism.” We stick with our tribe, through thick and thin — through truth and lies. This conduct has a high cost. It leaves the public with no one to trust. For several weeks I’ve been one of many voices calling for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the totality of Russian efforts to influence the American presidential election. In response, my friend Glenn Reynolds raised a fair question: “Who do you trust to investigate? The news media? The national security bureaucracy? Congress? All of them have gone out of their way to prove themselves untrustworthy.” Increasingly, we are reaching a point where we can “trust” political actors (and, make no mistake, the press is a political actor) only to be partisan. And to be partisan means trying to win every encounter, every news cycle, and every argument. Truth be damned. Fairness be damned. Law be damned. Partisans determine the “rules” only after they determine the desired outcome and then apply those rules if and only if they help the “good guys” win. This weekend, I overheard a small group of Republicans trying to reassure themselves after Spicer’s press conference. “Yes, it was terrible,” one said, “but at least we’ve got Mattis and DeVos, so on balance we’re still ahead.” Here’s the thing — it’s possible (and it’s not asking too much) to have the truth and to have General Mattis at the Pentagon and Betsy DeVos in the Department of Education. It’s possible to defend a man and a movement without lying. And it’s possible to refuse to lie for a man or for a movement. Until a critical mass of the public reaches that rather simple cultural and moral understanding, expect more of the same. Partisans will win some. They’ll lose some. But they’ll always sacrifice their integrity when the chips are down. — David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

There is no evidence of widespread illegal voting in the 2016 election.

    The outrage against President Donald Trump continues to boil over. The controversial businessman who recently took over the executive branch has triggered liberals and Never Trump Republicans for a year now, but things have recently escalated. Protesters have been in Washington D.C. for the last few days causing property damage and other violent tactics, resulting in numerous arrests. The violent side of the crowds has been reduced to a mere line in the stories as headlines read like peaceful protests. Celebrities and political figures have flocked to these events to seize the opportunity to further divide the country. Amidst all the violence, singer Madonna spoke to the unruly crowds. Given the massive podium before the crowds, she used her star status to make terrorist threats against the White House. In her Women’s March speech, Madonna said that she had thought an “awful lot about blowing up the White House.” If any regular citizen had stated this, the Secret Service would be on the scene waiting for an?

Many of us are familiar with the famous aphorism by the English cleric and writer Charles Caleb Colton: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Even so, I wonder if President Donald Trump feels the same way about the political candidate who is being called “Canada’s Trump.” This refers to Kevin O’Leary. He’s a successful Canadian-born businessman and financial commentator. He’s been a brash, controversial reality-TV star on CBC’s Dragon’s Den and ABC’s Shark Tank. He’s also running for the leadership of the Conservative party of Canada, even though he has no previous political experience. Hmm. Where have we read this script before? Ah, but there’s one catch: O’Leary doesn’t want to be known as the Trump of the Great White North. During an interview on January 18 with CTV News Channel, he acknowledged that both he and Trump “got famous on reality television,” but he believes that Canadians “need a leader that can actually deal with Trump.” He also told the New York Post on January 20: “We’re both businessmen. That is the common thread. But I am nowhere near the same [as] Donald Trump on policy. I am half Lebanese, half Irish — there’s no walls. . . . If there was a wall around Canada, I wouldn’t exist.” Indeed, the two men have fundamental differences when it comes to public policy. Here’s an example. Trump may have some capitalist instincts, but he regularly dips his toes into the choppy waters of economic nationalism. He is not necessarily opposed to tariffs, and he seems willing to abandon or retool trade agreements that he doesn’t like. O’Leary is a true capitalist and a bona fide fiscal conservative. He supports lower taxes, smaller government, free markets, and more economic growth. Trump believes in a more muscular foreign policy, fighting the War on Terror, and keeping America safe and secure. O’Leary, on the other hand, has made disparaging comments about the Canadian military and has no interest in fighting ISIS. On CTV News Channel’s Power Play in February 2016, he said that Canadians had a “moral authority . . . to be peacekeepers” and would prefer this to being “war mongers.” On Ottawa talk-radio station CFRA in December, he said: “Canadians are known as peacekeepers above all and not warriors. There’s nothing proud about being a warrior. War is a desperate outcome for a human being. Peacekeeping is extremely noble.” Many Canadians either dislike Trump or are fearful of his presidency. Polls have consistently shown his disapproval ratings in the low to mid 70s. The high-water mark (if you want to call it that) was in last November’s online Insights West poll, in which 80 percent of respondents felt it would be “bad” for Canada if Trump won the presidential election. That being said, an Ipsos/Global News poll also conducted at the end of October contained an intriguing revelation: 76 percent of respondents say they’d be “likely to consider” voting for a Canadian candidate with a platform similar to Donald Trump’s that focuses on stricter immigration controls, reviewing trade agreements like NAFTA, shifting spending on international development to domestic priorities, and being “tough on crime.” That’s not terribly surprising. “A populist, nationalist wave is sweeping the West,” The Economist’s popular Bagehot’s Notebook correctly pointed out on December 2. “It has to do with the economic crisis, globalisation, automation, immigration, stagnant wages, social media and a less deferential culture; albeit in drastically varying proportions in different countries.” It appears that the Canadian reality-TV star can blur the differences between Liberals and Tories just as well as the American reality-TV star has blurred the differences between Democrats and Republicans. O’Leary has been riding this anti-establishment wave, much as Trump has been. His campaign is populist in nature; he rejects the Ottawa-based elite and politics-as-usual crowd and claims he has the right ideas to lead Canada, though he has very few specifics. He also has taken a position on rebuilding his nation’s economy that puts, if you’ll pardon the phrase, “Canada First.” As well, while he’s clearly libertarian and fiscally conservative, he’s never self-identified as a conservative. He told the right-leaning Manning Centre conference last year that he was a member of the “Canadian taxpayer party” and didn’t believe “old political brands” would matter in the next election. “I can choose which party to actually run in,” he said, “because I think there will be a leadership race in the Liberal party.” It appears that the Canadian reality-TV star can blur the differences between Liberals and Tories just as well as the American reality-TV star has blurred the differences between Democrats and Republicans. O’Leary doesn’t have to be “Canada’s Trump.” But it’s to his political advantage to use strategic aspects of Trumpism in the Conservative-party leadership race. Whether or not he wants to publicly admit it, that’s exactly what he’s doing. — Michael Taube, a Troy Media syndicated columnist and Washington Times contributor, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Donald Trump may be headed into a big fight with Republican lawmakers with his plans for dramatic cuts to federal spending.

President Trump on Monday  designated Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission and an outspoken opponent of new net neutrality rules, to be the agency’s new chairman.

Protecting the entire Bill of Rights is one of the main reasons I ran for office.

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama had an average approval rating of 47.9 percent during his time in office,

Senator Schumer was measured and found wanting.

Critics accuse the celeb of prioritizing record sales over politics.

So much for Ann Coulter’s In Trump We Trust. Coulter had stubbornly insisted throughout the presidential campaign that the primary reason she was supporting Donald Trump for president was his hard-line stance on immigration. She wrote in her book In Trump We Trust, “There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet.

Tens of thousands of pro-lifers marched on the streets of Paris, France on Sunday to urge the government to stop approximately 220,000 unborn babies from being

Hundreds of thousands of women marched on Washington, D.C. over the weekend, supposedly to speak up for women's rights. However, the march organizers made it

EXCLUSIVE -- Red Alert speaks to the owner of the limo vandalized by anti-Trump protestors.

Young Josh Wheeler was marching in a peaceful, pro-life demonstration in Washington, DC Friday, when he and his father were assaulted by a protester with a larg

What happens when you join the national #WomensMarch to find out what it's really all about? We find out. Also, we went as undercover transgenders. Taken fro...

President Trump on Monday

Nasty Elizabeth Warren Refuses To Denounce Madonna’s Call For Violence On Saturday, the world was once again reminded of the ...