ActRight

Hundreds of videos lost.

Eyeroll.

For years, the left has pushed the notion that Americans are “implicitly biased.” Hillary Clinton repeated this trope throughout the campaign. In her first debate with Donald Trump, Hillary told NBC’s Lester Holt, “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.

"It's a third country that is building up its military presence on our borders in Europe."

These companies gave away $3.5 billion to charity last year.

The intelligence report on Russia and Trump serves Russia’s propaganda aim to disrupt U.S. politics and institutions....

The Obama administration is ending the “wet foot, dry foot” policy that granted residency to Cubans who arrived in the United States without visas.

Vice President Joe Biden confirmed on Thursday that the intelligence community briefed him and President Obama on the unverified report alleging President-elect Trump worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. In an interview with the Associated Press, Biden confirmed intelligence chiefs told him and Obama about the report, which was published in full by BuzzFeed earlier this week. The officials were concerned it might leak, Biden said. As a matter of fact, the president was like, 'What does this have anything to do with anything?' Biden said. The intelligence leaders responded by saying, Well, we feel obliged to tell you, Mr. President, because you may hear about it. We're going to tell (Trump), Biden said.

The Trump administration can slow things down for transgender Americans and prevent political advocates from rushing them into sex changes many are likely to regret.

Mollie Hemingway joined 'Special Report with Bret Baier' Wednesday to discuss Donald Trump's first press conference as president-elect.

Right to lament growing distrust of our institutions, President Obama fails to locate one its main sources: the Left.

    The final weeks of the President Barack Obama’s administration have been marked by a tumultuous transition as the world inches closer to experiencing a Trump administration. Fears over Russian interference within the United States during the presidential election have evolved into full blown hysteria, involving a plot by Russian intelligence to use President-elect Trump as a puppet. Enter BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed dropped a bombshell on the country when it leaked a two page dossier claiming that the President-elect has deep ties to Russia. Although BuzzFeed even admitted in the article there were “specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations”, these points were still presented as facts. The documents, which contained errors and misspellings, also contained graphic reports of sexual acts as noted by the Russians. The source was former British intelligence. This is significant because of a number of reasons. When Wikileaks dropped its numerous leaks regarding the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, many denounced them because the authenticity was not confirmed. This point alone was used by?

Current policy prohibits the president from endorsing specific companies.

Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to blast members of his own party for moving forward with legislation that adds nearly $10 trillion t...

Following the publication of a dossier containing explosive and unverified info on Donald Trump and Russia, BBC News reported Wednesday that it originated in opposition research done by a former British intelligence officer working for a Super PAC supporting none other than Jeb Bush. If that sounds like a too-good-to-be-true political plot twist, that's because maybe it is—a lawyer for the PAC told TPM it "had nothing to do with British Intelligence officers."

Vice President Joe Biden: Romney 'Will 'Put Y'all Back In Chains' Joe Biden to supporters: Mitt Romney will 'put you all back in chains' Romney will 'put you...

Former New York City Mayor …

An Arizona state trooper is alive today because a gun-toting stranger came to his rescue as an assailant smashed the trooper’s head into the pavement Thursday. A 27-year Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper came upon the scene of a rollover crash on Interstate 10 in Tonopah, Arizona, early Thursday at about 4:20 a.m. A […]

On Tuesday I wrote a relatively short piece noting that new research is debunking the widely-held belief that there is a link between discriminatory behavior and so-called “implicit bias.” Yesterday, New York magazine published a long, detailed, and thorough essay that demolishes the idea that “implicit bias” — as measured by the extraordinarily popular Implicit Association Test (IAT) — can measure either real bias or meaningfully predict human behavior (hat tip, Roger Clegg). Some highlights: A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such. The history of the test suggests it was released to the public and excitedly publicized long before it had been fully validated in the rigorous, careful way normally demanded by the field of psychology. In fact, there’s a case to be made that Harvard shouldn’t be administering the test in its current form, in light of its shortcomings and its potential to mislead people about their own biases. There’s also a case to be made that the IAT went viral not for solid scientific reasons, but simply because it tells us such a simple, pat story about how racism works and can be fixed: that deep down, we’re all a little — or a lot — racist, and that if we measure and study this individual-level racism enough, progress toward equality will ensue. The test is so unreliable that people can take it at different times and different days and get wildly different results — meaning that there’s a chance that the IAT is measuring nothing more than a person’s particular skill at the test: What all these numbers mean is that there doesn’t appear to be any published evidence that the race IAT has test-retest reliability that is close to acceptable for real-world evaluation. If you take the test today, and then take it again tomorrow — or even in just a few hours — there’s a solid chance you’ll get a very different result. That’s extremely problematic given that in the wild, whether on Project Implicit or in diversity-training sessions, test-takers are administered the test once, given their results, and then told what those results say about them and their propensity to commit biased acts. (It should be said that there are still certain consistent patterns: Most white people, for example, score positively on black-white IAT, supposedly signaling the presence of anti-black implicit bias.) More: In examining the history of the IAT, it’s clear that early on, the test’s architects and most enthusiastic proponents got ahead of themselves in their claims that the IAT accurately measured implicit bias, never fully grappling with the possibility that the test captures, or also captures, other stuff as well. But again: All the test itself measures is differences in reaction times, and if those reaction-times differences haven’t been proven to predict real-world behavior, it doesn’t make sense to tag someone with a high IAT score as “implicitly biased,” except in a very trivial sense of the term. Why — with all its problems — is the test so popular? It’s a great way for progressives to virtue-signal: For one thing, the test offers a lot to members of the public who are concerned about racism, whether they are white and concerned about their out-group biases, or nonwhite and concerned about the possibility that they have internalized bias against their own group. Taking the IAT is a way for them to feel like they are part of the solution. Now I get it — now I understand that my implicit bias is contributing to America’s race problem. This can explain the strange but common phenomenon of test-takers loudly broadcasting results which imply they are implicitly racist: It’s a way of signaling they’re serious about investigating their own complicity in a big, complicated system of oppression. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that, of course, if the IAT were in fact providing test-takers useful information about their level of implicit bias. The broader story told by the IAT is, at the moment, quite politically palatable and intuitively satisfying. Not only is implicit bias driving all sorts of racially unfair outcomes, that story tells us, but it’s something that we can detect and measure in ourselves, helping to raise our consciousness. “I think the reason behind adoption of implicit-bias training is simple: It is now the thing to do to demonstrate commitment to diversity and redressing inequality,” said Mitchell. I’d encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s long, but the author says, “It would take thousands and thousands more words to fully lay out all the problems with the IAT and how it has been applied.” Once again junk science is leading the public astray.

Cuban migrants who arrive in the United States without a visa will be returned to Cuba, the White House says.

“Thank you to Linda Bean of L.L.Bean for your great support and courage. People will support you even more now. Buy L.L.Bean. @LBPerfectMaine”

A Missouri state representative from Platte County is making waves with a declaration concerning First Amendment rights. 

Thursday's New York Times has a report on how the highly suspicious dossier alleging that Donald Trump was compromised by Russian intelligence agents came into existence. Among the other interesting revelations was that the dubious opposition research report was put together by the research firm Fusion GPS: The story began in September 2015, when a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump put up the money to hire a Washington research firm run by former journalists, Fusion GPS, to compile a dossier about the real estate magnate's past scandals and weaknesses, according to a person familiar with the effort. The person described the opposition research work on condition of anonymity, citing the volatile nature of the story and the likelihood of future legal disputes. The identity of the donor is unclear.

Donald Trump discussed his relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin in a 2013 interview that resurfaced after the president-elect denied any links to the nation — watch

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) reacted to the leak of an intelligence dossier that has been criticized as unfairly vetted and considered false by President-elect Donald Trump.