ActRight

On Sunday, Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv pointed out that CNN contributor Joan Walsh had been attacking him via her Twitter “likes,” liking a series of tweets that targeted him personally:

Over the weekend, mass panic broke out among media types over Sinclair Broadcasting’s use of local anchors across the country to push out a message about the prevalence of unvetted stories on social media. Here’s what the campaign looked like:

"Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed..."

'Many more shootings occur with a pistol than they do with a rifle'

Long after David Hogg's fame has faded, attempts to deplatform conservatives and destroy Fox News will continue

Democrat Leon Fresco says pressure from migrants and courts can force Trump to approve amnesty law.

Trump Invited Putin To Summit At White House. Issued Not Raised Since Skripal Poisoning.

A middle school teacher in Hampton, Georgia, came under fire for a classroom assignment that required students to write letters to pressure Congress for stricter gun laws. What happened? The premise of the assignment was that stricter laws could prevent another mass killing at a school, according to reports. “For this assignment, you are writing a letter to the lawmakers of the United States," the assignment stated. The purpose of this letter is to pressure lawmakers to have stricter gun laws in the United States.” The law enforcement group Blue Lives Matter obtained a copy of the assignment from a police officer whose son is in the class. "I asked him what he had for homework that night, and he said he had to write a paper on gun control," William Lee told Blue Lives Matter. "I looked at it, and I told my son, 'No, you're not doing that assignment.' Then I emailed his ?

SOMERVILLE -- The birthplace of so-called "sanctuary city" policies, which bar police from sharing arrestees' information with federal immigration officials, is stepping up its resistance to President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Earlier this month Somerville city officials rolled out a program

Every one of the 44 House Democrats who hired Pakistan-born IT aides who later allegedly made "unauthorized access" to congressional data appears to have chosen to exempt them from background checks,

As with the Gamergate fiasco, when looking at real problems with difficult answers the thing to do is to blame people who say mildly edgy things online.

Parkland student Kyle Kashuv has found a mentor in conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, and the two have struck up an online alliance. After surviving the deadly...

Why would underage sex for a 17-year-old be considered a ‘child bride’ in one scenario and a fully consenting, sexually adventurous adult in another?

Watch video of Ruth Bader Ginsburg denouncing U.S. Constitution and expressing preference for vastly inferior foreign documents that enable tyranny.

Today, a trial judge ruled that Seattle can't deny landlords the right to choose their own tenants. Seattle's "first in time" rule forced landlords to offer any vacant unit to the first qualified applicant. Representing several small-time landlords, PLF challenged the rule in Yim v. City of Seattle.

Is this affair worthy of the public's attention or has too much been given to it already?

Playing off of my weekend post of Amazon?s desire to get into Americans homes, the rhetoric from the White House is ramping up. President Trump tweeting about Amazon as a monopoly riding on t…

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said without an act of Congress, President Trump cannot use military funding to pay for his border wall, as Trump has suggested he might do.

President Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders at least agree on one thing: Amazon is a problem.

Our 2nd Amendment continues to be either ignored or manipulated into cheap talking points designed to push the agenda of eliminating our right to bear arms as citizens. Or in the very least, as a way to over regulate our 2nd and to continue to erode the authority of We The People. So let?s break down the entire Amendment, piece by piece. Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” “A well regulated militia” and “necessary to the security of a free state” Both of these statements are clearly stating the obvious: that a “free state” should, within the state’s government, have a well regulated militia. Why is that? Because at that time, the people just fought a revolution to free itself from tyranny orchestrated by King George that stops the over regulation of all things to include gun ownership. In Boston, like many colony areas the King made sure that no gun powder or loaded arms will be stored in the homes of the people. This practice and idea was thwarted by the creation of the 2nd Amendment, maintaining that never again will a King’s government, nor any government “over” regulate to prevent “the people” from owning and bearing arms where and how they saw the need to do so. And that these people, if they ever saw their state being in need of defense against tyranny, could very well do so. If they formed a militia while doing so, then the first part of the 2nd amendment only suggests the necessity of it should be well disciplined or regulated. The word ?regulated? At this time in history regulated was not a term used for laws, but what it really is, a verb. An action word that means to maintain the rate or speed so that it operates properly. Note it is not the definition of a system of rules that are created through governmental institutions, or a law. And militia? Is a noun that describes a military force that is raised from the civil population. So the need our founders experienced and acknowledged by the words of the 2nd Amendment is that when enemies or governments get so corrupt and or tyrannical in nature and purposely forcing hardships on the people, that the people have the right to defend against such totalitarian actions. The minds of any educated person, as our founders were, would have known that you would need to form a force equal to or greater than that tyrannical force to defeat it. The first part of the 2nd amendment sentence is the subject of a militia, and the purpose of said militia. The second comma in the amendment and why it separates the former from “the people”. The second part of the 2nd Amendment sentence has the subject of the rights of the individual American Citizen to bear arms, and the command to the government that that right of the people shall not be violated, breached, or infringed. We forget that the Constitution was written to tell the government what it cannot do to the people, not the other way around. It is clear that the second half of the 2nd Amendment being the absolute Right of the people to keep and bear arms and the government has no authority to overstep that right of the people to defend themselves individually and if they chose to do the smart thing and create a militia while doing it, they will have greater chance of being successful. The People One last way to communicate it is that the framers of the Constitution acknowledged the fact that people need to be able to own and keep their own arms always to stay disciplined enough so when the time comes, if necessary, could quickly form a fighting force to defend itself from anyone outside of the state trying to invade or take away their rights, to include another King George or tyrannical government. In my recent article on the current issue of mass killings and terrorists, I offered proof that “guns” are not the problem. Unfortunately between my last article and this one we saw another mass murder take place on 6 separate attacks. Bombs, not guns, were the weapon of choice, this time in Texas before the perpetrator was caught and blew himself up with his 7th bomb.  Bombs were the “tool of choice” by this coward and evil individual. Just like the mindset of this evil young man in Texas, it was the same as the evil young coward in Florida, and exactly the same evil as the sadistic Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn of the Chicago area in the 60’s and the list goes on and on. Hate is the common denominator, and they believe that the murdering of innocent lives is some kind of justice in their twisted ideologies. This is where our focus needs to be, not on bombs, guns, ropes, knives, hatchets, cars, planes, scalpels etc. We need to be asking the questions: What are the triggers that ignite these actions? What are the causes of the creation of these triggers? And what in our society aides in the development of such hate? It really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to declare it did not help our nation by pulling prayer from our classrooms and public squares, which actions in itself caused the demonizing of Christianity. Or teaching less American History and civic classes within our education system which in turn erases our patriotism. Accepting the breakdown of the nuclear family and embracing violence, sexual promiscuity and drug use in our movies, games, and entertainment. Yes these play a huge role in the mass murders. Don’t allow our government to continue to use these tragic events to take away the rights of We The People of this Republic. Don’t allow them to make us into a socialist democracy.

There has been much talk along with a little screaming and hollering over the suggestion by the President and others that teachers be allowed to carry concealed on school property as an adjunct to on-site security/police presence. His suggestion was also clearly couched in terms of voluntary involvement and that only a relatively small percentage of teachers would be needed to affect improvements in the threat of school violence. Nonetheless, the gun-grabbers and nay-sayers that refuse to accept anything less than complete capitulation by anyone who believes that our Constitution is just as relevant to today’s world as it was in 1787, insist that such a proposal is a terrible idea that would endanger kids and distract from the teaching environment. I beg to differ. The whole point of allowing (not forcing) teachers who willingly and comfortably choose to carry do so was to bring in the protective element of concealed carry while remaining as low-key as possible so as not to disrupt the teaching environment. With modern equipment available to both male and female firearms carriers, the ability to conceal a useful firearm and still make it readily available when needed is not a difficult task. Keeping it concealed is largely a matter of wardrobe selection and choice of that equipment that suits the individual. From purely a policy standpoint, the only shortcoming I could see in such a plan is when faced with a situation where students are moving about the building between periods and the attack takes place at the same time – like it did in Parkwood. The confusion mixed with no readily available means to identify armed teachers could put those teachers at risk if law enforcement comes on the scene and sees multiple firearms mixed in with the students. That concern could be addressed based on the circumstances at the time by establishing a policy that when changing periods, armed teachers remain in the classroom and either defend students in the room already, or (if the room is already empty) facilitate students entering the room to seek shelter. In this way, they would be stationary and law enforcement would know that they are staff rather than a perpetrator. On a national level, this should not even be a subject of discussion. As with so many things, the federal government has no authority to interfere with what happens in our schools. Yes, they have usurped much on this area, but we can only pray that it will eventually end with states retaking their authority over the education of our children and youth. On this subject, just this morning Politico’s Morning education email quotes the Senate Education Committee Chairman, Lamar Alexander as stating, “I’m not a fan of [arming school personnel]. Again, that’s up to the States.” While you can differ with his view on the subject, his conclusion is a welcome breath of fresh air coming from the Senate. Unfortunately, Alexander should have stopped there instead of adding, ?We don?t arm pilots. ? We arm marshals who are trained professionals, who ride the airplanes from time to time. So, we need resource officers or policemen in schools, that?s one thing. I think teachers ought to teach and let policemen have the guns.? In fact, several Airlines allow pilots to be armed because, 1) not all flights include Air Marshals; and 2) If an attacker breaches the cockpit, they serve as a last line of defense against an intruder. Common sense. A classroom full of students need someone that will defend them if the room is breached. If, for no other reason, the option should be made available to any teacher if they choose to accept the offer. At the state level, guidelines should be established so that law enforcement is working with a uniform expectation when approaching an “active shooter” situation. These guidelines should be just that- guidelines – with the final decision regarding the arming of teachers or staff left to each district to decide. Local control in such matters is always the best policy. What is right for one school district might not be right for another. Bottom line here is to avoid a one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of any sort of violence within our schools. Not every situation is the same. Part of any training required of teachers to participate in the security of their school should include situational awareness training as well as training in knowing when to reach for their firearm and when not to. As a firearms instructor, the thing that I emphasize most with anyone who chooses to carry a firearm is that practice should be paramount and should bring you to the point where reactions are consistent and automatic. But unless one is willing to exercise a life or death decision on the spur of the moment. They should think twice before making a commitment. Hesitation at a critical point can cause an entirely different sort of tragedy. It is certain that regardless of what policy changes and legislative choices are made, it is highly unlikely that they will be 100 percent effective in preventing future incidents. To believe otherwise is foolish. The best we can hope for is a mix of policies and actions that effectively reduce occurrences and tragic loss of life. Arming teachers is only a single element in a multi-faceted effort, and it should be clearly voluntary. Two parting thoughts: Eliminating “Gun Free Zones” is a far more effective action to start with, when it comes to deterrence, and The gun is not the problem. It’s the person holding it that can make all the difference.    

This is beginning to look an awful lot like Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Hillary Clinton fired back at her critics on the left late Friday, claiming that it was "sexism" that drove Democrats, in the days following the 2016 Presidential election, to tell her to keep quiet about what caused her devastating loss to now-President Donald Trump.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A back in 2016 because of the company’s Christian values, but that didn?t stop the restaurant chain from building a Taj Mahal of an eatery in the Big Apple. “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New ?

'The future life of each one of us depends on a willingness to be saved from eternal death,' says a distinguished pastor