ActRight

Washington Post journalist David Fahrenthold learned a very difficult lesson about what happens when you ignore the four gun safety rules.

When Barack Obama moves two miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 2446 Belmont Road in Washington’s Kalorama neighborhood, he will live half a mile from 2340 S Street, where Woodrow Wilson spent his three post-presidential years. Wilson’s embittering foreign policy failure was the Senate’s rejection of the U.S. participation in the embodiment of Wilsonian aspirations, the League of Nations. Obama leaves office serene because “almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago.” Two seemingly unimpressed nations are Russia, which is dismembering a European nation (Ukraine) and China, which is shredding international law by turning the world’s most important waterway, the South China Sea, into militarized Chinese territory. Obama’s policies that brought America to a pinnacle of admiration, as he sees it, were an amalgam of Wilsonian and anti-Wilsonian elements. Wilson’s grand ambition for America was to reorder the world in a way that would make it unnecessary for America to have grand ambitions. He thought America could lead a restful life after strenuous diplomacy had written rules for the game of nations. Many progressives believe — they take this from the Founders’ favorite philosopher, John Locke, while rejecting his natural rights teaching — in humanity’s natural sociability. This disposes them to believe that peace among nations is natural and spontaneous, or it would be if other nations would cleanse their minds of the superstitions that prevent them from recognizing the universal validity and demonstrable utility of American principles. These, said Wilson, are shared by “forward looking men and women everywhere” and “every modern nation.” He also said, inconsistently, that “every nation of the world needs to be drawn into the tutelage of America.”      RELATED: The Ancient Foreign Policy Obama seemed to doubt that America has much to teach the world, beyond post-Iraq modesty — herewith his Wilsonian dimension — and the power of diplomacy’s soft power to tame the world. Although neither the English nor the American nor the Russian nor the Spanish nor the Chinese civil war was ended by negotiations, Obama thought the especially vicious and complex civil war in Syrian’s sectarian and tribal society could be ended diplomatically. Russian president Vladimir Putin picked a side and helped it win. The fact that the world is more disorderly and less lawful than when Obama became president is less his fault than the fault of something about which progressives are skeptical — powerful, unchanging human nature. Humans are, as Job knew, born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward: They are desirous and competitive, and hence are prone to conflict. And to causing progressives to furrow their brows in puzzlement. In 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, Secretary of State John Kerry was disappointed with Putin, saying, more in sorrow than in anger: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion.” If you do, you place yourself on (in one of Obama’s favorite phrases) “the wrong side of history.” Obama’s foreign policy presumed the existence of “the community of nations.” Make that History, which, in progressives’ lexicon, is a proper noun, an autonomous thing with a mind, or at least a logic, of its own. Kerry’s reprimand of Putin expressed a progressive’s certitude about progress: The passage of time should ineluctably improve the comportment of nations. Which is why in 1911, the renowned 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its entry on torture, said “the whole subject is one of only historical interest as far as Europe is concerned.” The Dachau concentration camp was opened in March 1933. Obama’s foreign policy presumed the existence of “the community of nations.” But that phrase is worse than hackneyed and sentimental, it is oxymoronic: Different nations affirm different notions of justice; a community consists of people made cohesive by a consensus about the nature of justice. #related#Obama’s second-worst unforced error, second to declaring and then abandoning a “red line” about Syrian chemical weapons, was involving the U.S. military in regime change in Libya. Perhaps this venture appealed to him because it was untainted by any discernible connection with American national interest. He conducted it by “leading from behind,” which he described as U.S. forces “being volunteered by others to carry out missions” in Libya. As George Orwell said, “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Soon, foreign policy will be conducted by a man who, although in 2010 he said WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange deserves the death penalty, now seems to trust Assange on the subject of Russian hacking more than he trusts the consensus of the nation’s $53 billion civilian intelligence institutions. Time passes and, we are told, brings progress. — George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2017 Washington Post Writers Group

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte toured a Russian warship in Manila and asked for the Russian Navy to visit more often.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry appeared on Fox News? Tucker Carlson Tonight saying she was so sick of politicization of global warming in academia she resigned from her tenured position at Ge…

20 million Americans have healthcare due to Obamacare. Republican voters don’t want a repeal without a replacement. Their Senators…

A journey through rural Ohio reveals how a Republican billionaire who “shits on a gold-plated toilet” learned how to “talk Democratic” better than Clinton.

With two weeks left in his term, President Obama is signaling that he intends to do anything but go quietly once President-elect Trump takes office, rejecting the example set by most every other president. Obama's failure to emulate the class and deference shown him by President George W. Bush — allowing his successor to lead without interference from the previous occupant — will not work to the Democratic Party's advantage, nor will it be good for our divided nation. The moral impact of Obama's refusal to recede cannot be understated as he's leaving the nation more politically divided than when he took office, according to polling done by the Pew Research Center. Any post-presidential meddling would undermine Trump's efforts to unify a country sorely in need of healing.

Members of Freedom Caucus are making the repeal of Obamacare their priority.

As a marijuana extract used to treat seizures becomes more widely embraced, Wisconsin Republicans are softening their opposition to medical marijuana.

"He fully supports my plan to replace Obamacare the same day we repeal it," Paul says.

Senate conservatives were eager this week to vote for the first step in repealing Obamacare. But that also meant a vote for a measure that says the public debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next 10 years – the very sort of fiscal nightmare those conservatives have been fighting for years.

Federalist senior editor Mollie Hemingway joined Fox News's Special Report Thursday night to discuss outgoing President Barack Obama's legacy.

In an effort to raise the bar, we are depriving children of many of the school experiences they need to develop healthy, open minds, and a love of learning.

Democrats prepare their best defense for the GOP’s repeal efforts.

A House report reveals Planned Parenthood wrongdoing.

Cybersecurity for Liberal Dummies - Timothy Daughtry: In this digital age, when a teenager with a smartphone .01/08/2017 10:59:16AM EST.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey will no...

I was horrified to hear this morning, from multiple news sources, about how a truck decided on its own to murder four Israelis.

The front lines of the pro-life movement can be an eerily irrational place where the normal rules of logic and morality give way to emotion and fear. The recent decision by a post-abortive New Mexico woman to sue an abortion clinic for transferring (or selling) her aborted child’s remains for scientific research — an objection seemingly inconsistent with the woman’s earlier decision to abort — offers a timely example of this phenomenon. The news comes on the heels of the ongoing congressional investigation into the fetal-parts trade. The incongruity of the lawsuit demonstrates that abortion opponents must address the chaos and instability that often drive the abortion decision rather than just convince women that they’re killing a baby. It also underscores the need for clear moral education in our families and churches long before the crisis occurs. The New Mexico woman, Jessica Duran, sued a prominent late-term-abortion clinic in Albuquerque last week for failing to tell her that the remains of her aborted fetus would be sent to the University of New Mexico to be used in scientific experimentation. Duran contends she was horrified to learn her child had been the subject of research. “To know my child was used as a science project, a child I loved and wanted, it’s devastating,” Duran said. The logic of the lawsuit and the mother’s statement are baffling. As she is bringing an informed-consent case, Duran will have to prove that she never would have consented to the transfer or subsequent research and that she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of it. She says she loved and wanted the child. Yet she chose to take the child’s life. How could a mother who willingly chose to abort her child care so much what happened to his or her body after death? And how could a mother who understood that the child was a person and professed to have cared for the child have taken that child’s life? Some may ask whether she is just trying to make a quick buck through a lawsuit. But the same sort of off-kilter mindset exists away from the cameras and the courtrooms. At Human Coalition, almost all of our clients are women on the verge of choosing abortion, and we see this thinking on a daily basis. I recall a recent story from one of our care coordinators who was manning our mobile clinic outside an urban abortion clinic one Saturday morning. A young woman stopped by to see us on the way to her appointment for an abortion. Our ultrasound exam revealed that she had already experienced a miscarriage. The client wept. From time to time, our clients tell us that they think they’re doing the right thing for their children by seeking an abortion. They can foresee the challenges of their children’s lives, and they think it better to terminate the pregnancy than to bring the children into their own world of chaotic relationships and economic instability. From time to time, our clients tell us that they think they’re doing the right thing for their children by seeking an abortion. What our staff anecdotally reports after spending time listening to our clients is that these conflicted emotions often stem from the client’s desire to regain control over her life. Abortion allows clients to continue their attempts to overcome poverty (through either employment or education) and regain control over the trajectory of their lives. To an abortion-determined mother, our staff has observed, a miscarriage strips away a woman’s sense of control over the situation, her hard-wired mothering instinct then returns, and she mourns the loss of her child. Feeling out of control may also help to explain why adoption is not a more common choice for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy. For instance, in our clinics this year, we’ve counseled 2,080 clients seeking or considering abortion, but only 18 have chosen to place their children for adoption. With adoption, the mother brings her child into what she perceives to be a cruel and unforgiving world. She worries the child will be placed with an abusive family or lost to the foster-care system. She believes she will be constantly confronted with the trauma of losing her child. And she fears the thought of knowing that her child will be a stranger to her, preventing closure. Indeed, researchers have equated the position of birth mothers to that of the family members of servicemembers missing in action. If the desire to regain control underlies many abortion decisions, it makes sense that a mother who chose abortion would be upset that the remains of her child were used without her knowledge or permission for a stranger’s research. While some mothers may certainly contrive an explanation for their abortion to cover the fear and selfishness driving their choice, our experience suggests that the best way to save babies is not to emphasize the immorality of abortion and urge them to choose adoption instead. In fact, many of our clients acknowledge the sinfulness of the procedure they’re considering; yet the fear and desperation they experience often outweigh that moral sense. Thus, when counseling abortion-determined women, we’ve found it more effective to focus on hopefulness and stability and, where we can, to help bring calm and some measure of security. In this way, we can walk with women like Jessica Duran, offering the help and empowerment they need to regain control of their circumstances before a life-shattering abortion decision is made. #related#This observation doesn’t mean that moral engagement has no place in the discussion. It means that we must work harder to instill fundamental respect for human life before a woman ever finds herself faced with the choice between life or death for her child. The majority of women in America who seek abortion identify as Christian, and almost half of them attended church regularly at the time of their abortion. Yet, in spite of lifelong exposure to moral instruction, these women are still choosing abortion at rates comparable to non-believers. America’s churches, families, and other mediating institutions must solidify the conviction that all children should be afforded the basic human dignity of being protected in the womb. This conviction must be built over months and years of routine teaching and character formation — it’s not enough to wait until the moment of crisis. By then, it’s too late. — Colin LeCroy is associate general counsel at Human Coalition, one of the largest pro-life organizations in the country, which uses technology, data, best practices, compassion, grace, and tangible help to serve families and rescue children from abortion.

President Barack Obama condemned the horrific video in which four young black men and women tortured a disabled white man, but proceeded to make an absurd claim–race relations have improved. "I don't think it's accurate to say race relations are getting worse," Obama told CBS.

We shouldn’t doubt that President Obama will read the new book by the liberal journalist Jonathan Chait. The title alone will be enough to grab him: Audacity: How Barack Obama Defied His Critics and Created a Legacy That Will Prevail. He will read it slowly and carefully, Montblanc at the ready to underline notable passages and jot down marginalia (How true! and Excellent point! and Tell it to Michelle!). And when he puts it aside he will feel just a little bit uneasy. Maybe he'll even ink a note on the final page: This is the best they can do? Chait writes about politics for New York magazine, and in the crowded imperial court of Obama's journalists he stands apart—the courtier's courtier, the boot-licker against whom all boot-licking must be measured. I am not always right, he writes at the close of his book, with unusual understatement. But Barack Obama is a subject I believe I got right, right from the beginning.

UNRWA is not looking so good right now...

A transgender Ammon woman was sentenced Thursday to two to five years in prison for surreptitiously recording a young woman as she undressed in a Target dressing room.

You don't have to conform to the world. But neither must it conform to you.

(John Hinderaker) The Democrats are doing all they can to spike Donald Trump’s presidency before it gets off the ground. His path is littered with snares and pitfalls. Among other things, the Obama administration is taking a series of executive actions that the Democrats say Trump can’t undo. I am not sure how that works;…