ActRight

Contrary to popular belief, liberal mainstream media bias is not the same ol? narrative that conservatives have had to fight since the 1970s. Starting with the Bush administration and as a di…

The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won't do anything for t...

Republicans say they will replace Obamacare using a methodical, step-by-step legislative approach combined with executive actions from the next Health and Human Services secretary.

The country artist won't back away from the opportunity to perform for the country and its military, he said in a statement.

Legislators in Arizona want to end college classes that promote discrimination.

The National Black Church Initiative slammed Sharpton, saying he ‘blew an opportunity’ while Obama was in office.

Subscribe for more! Like & Share if you Enjoy! Thanks for Watching! Douglas Murray making perfect sense on Europe and its future. Song: Tony Anderson - Spiri...

During a town hall in Washington, D.C. last night, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked House Speaker Paul Ryan what he considered to be the most “irksome” comments he’d seen about himself on social media. “What written about you on social media has been the most amusing to you, and what has been the most...

Bill Clinton’s sexual assault accusers Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey oppose the upcoming Women’s March on Washington.

An Emory College professor is calling for “abandonment of the term ‘microaggression’” and “a moratorium on microaggression training programs.”

In the heat of the fall campaign, the commentariat got its knickers twisted over Donald Trump’s vow that, if elected, he’d have his Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton, his political rival. How remarkable, then, that the media is so indifferent to the revelation that, at the very same time, the Obama Justice Department was actively conducting an investigation of Trump. As I recounted in Wednesday’s column, the FBI reportedly had suspicions that Trump, or at least members of his “team,” might be violating financial and banking laws. Upon poking around, the Bureau determined there was no “nefarious purpose” in the connection of a server in Trump Tower to at least one bank. Yet the case was not dropped upon the finding of no criminality. Instead, apparently because the bank or banks involved were Russian, the matter was pursued as a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Indeed, the investigation may well be ongoing. Reporting indicates that surveillance warrants were sought from the FISA court in June and October 2016. The first one is said to have “named” Trump himself (we don’t know if that means the government was targeting Trump for surveillance, or if his name was merely mentioned in the FISA application). That application was apparently so lacking that the FISA court refused to authorize it, even though that court is generally quite accommodating of government requests to conduct secret searches and eavesdropping. The court is reported to have granted a narrower application in October — one that appears not to have named Trump. The court’s proceedings are secret, so this reporting cannot be confirmed. I want to draw attention to a fact I did not dwell on in Wednesday’s column: The FBI is not authorized to seek a national-security surveillance warrant from the FISA court — just as it is not authorized to seek such a warrant from a U.S. district court in an ordinary criminal case. Only the Justice Department is permitted to do that. The FBI could not have sought FISA warrants against Trump without the Obama Justice Department’s approval and assistance. Interesting contrast, isn’t it? Throughout the criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, the Obama Justice Department would not use the grand jury or help the FBI obtain search or surveillance warrants. As a result, the FBI had no power to compel the production of evidence. Suspects had to be cajoled into cooperating. The only thing the Justice Department was willing to do was grant highly unusual immunity deals, ensuring that suspects could not be prosecuted if they disclosed incriminating evidence. And then there was the Clinton Foundation corruption investigation. Recall that the Bureau’s investigators, in seeking to build their case, sought access to the e-mails the FBI had managed to acquire in the Clinton e-mails caper. But access was denied by the Obama Justice Department (specifically, by the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York — the office Loretta Lynch led before being elevated to attorney general). And now we learn that, despite what the intelligence community assures us were grave concerns about Russia’s role in hacking operations against the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, the FBI never obtained access to the physical servers and devices believed to have been hacked. According to FBI director James Comey’s congressional testimony this week, the FBI made repeated requests for access (presumably to the DNC and the Clinton campaign), but was rebuffed. The FBI had no legal power to compel the production of evidence from the DNC or Podesta; for that, they needed the Obama Justice Department. Bear in mind: The joint assessment released by the FBI, CIA, and NSA last week describes the penetration of the Democratic victims’ communications as “cyber-espionage” — an extremely serious offense with obvious national-security implications. Now we learn, however, that in forming that explosive conclusion, our intelligence agencies were content to rely on an examination by an unidentified “private company.” When pressed by the Senate Intelligence Committee about why the FBI was denied access to the DNC’s servers and Podesta’s device, Comey reportedly said he did not know. That sounds like a dodge coming from someone as generally well-informed as the director. Understand, though, that the question was more politically fraught than readers not versed in criminal procedure may appreciate. In essence, he was being asked to explain why the Obama Justice Department did not help the FBI. It comes back to the same issue that plagued the Clinton investigation: The FBI had no legal power to compel the production of evidence from the DNC or Podesta; for that, they needed the Obama Justice Department. Only the Justice Department has the power to open a grand-jury investigation. That would have enabled the FBI, by using grand-jury subpoenas, to demand access to the devices in order to do its own examination. Or, if exigent circumstances dictated seizing evidence rather than asking for its production, the FBI would have needed the Justice Department’s assistance to compose a search-warrant application and present it to a U.S. district judge for approval. Just as in the Clinton e-mails investigation, the Justice Department was either AWOL or functioning as counsel for the Democrats — not for the United States. If the Justice Department refuses to assist the FBI, the FBI is in no position to force witnesses in possession of vital evidence to surrender it. If the Justice Department refuses to assist the FBI, the FBI is in no position to force witnesses in possession of vital evidence to surrender it. Agents are reduced to pleading with those witnesses for voluntary cooperation. If they refuse — and if the Democrat-led Justice Department declines to force the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic presidential campaign to produce evidence — then the FBI has no choice but to accept what the FBI would never tolerate in a normal case: analysis by a private, Democrat-retained company rather than the FBI’s legendary forensics lab. On the other hand, if the Justice Department decides a case against Republicans is worth pursuing aggressively, even the absence of evidence of a crime is no obstacle — they just go the FISA court, and they keep going until they get the answer they like. So, in a nutshell: A vague and apparently unsubstantiated suspicion of criminality connected to the Republican presidential candidate, based on potential involvement of Russia, prompts the Obama Justice Department to continue investigating under FISA and to approach the court twice — the latter time, very shortly before Election Day — for surveillance warrants. In stark contrast, concrete and substantiated suspicions of wrongdoing by the Democratic presidential candidate prompt a refusal by the Obama Justice Department to assist the FBI investigation (except to immunize the wrongdoers). Moreover, despite what the intelligence community maintains is confirmed evidence of Russian cyberespionage, the Obama Justice Department — far from seeking court warrants — refuses to compel production of Democratic communication devices. You’d almost think the Obama Justice Department makes enforcement decisions based on partisan politics. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

America today commemorates what would have been the 88th birthday of its foremost civil-rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. — whose eloquent dreams surely never included being honored with a nati…

The president-elect also said he would force drug firms to negotiate prices in Medicare and Medicaid.

FULL CIA Director John Brennan interview On "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace (15/01/2017)

Martin Luther King Jr. was born Jan. 15, 1929. In 1983, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the bill to make the third Monday in January a holiday in honor of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister like his father and grandfather. He was pastor of Dexter Avenue […]

President Barack Obama?s Farewell Address received many critiques (including that it ?was longer than the goodbye speeches of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined?); but was his address good? To answer that question, it needs to be measured against a fixed standard, which is the Farewell Address of George Washington – considered [?]

Report: Laura Ingraham Considering Senate Run in Virginia

The unimaginable horror of this story is only outstripped in depravity by the reaction and response by Merkel's government and the authorities. They know. They know all about this and the hundreds of thousands of other savage acts but their only concern is whether such news will appear on a post at Facebook or an article here at TGR. They are the monsters because they are allegedly civilized, non-Muslim and dio not subsxcribe to the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth. They are supposed to know the difference. The Nazis exhibited this depravity too.

Rick Santorum: Obama Was a Vindictive Bully

OPINION | Jeff Sessions has a history African Americans should applaud.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump called NATO obsolete, predicted that other European Union members would follow the U.K. in leaving the bloc and threatened BMW with import duties over a planned plant in Mexico, according to an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper that will raise concerns in Berlin over trans-Atlantic relations.

Gingrich: Trump Should 'Thoroughly Overhaul' Incompetent Intelligence Community

Donald Trump supporters want to see the Talladega College marching band in the Inaugural Parade. So much so, the band’s GoFundMe goal of $75,000 to attend the inaugural was surpassed by over 500%. Fox & Friends reported Saturday morning that the “historically black” Great Tornado Band’s fundraising haul had reached $278,069. But as of Saturday …

Woodward: Trump Dossier Is a 'Garbage Document' --- Intelligence Chiefs Should 'Apologize' to Trump

Unlike other migrants who arrive on American soil without visas, Cubans once had a unique place in U.S. immigration policy. Not anymore.