ActRight

Did you hear the joke about the paedophile that organised the children’s rights march? What about the one about the butcher who organised the vegetarian food festival? My favourite has to be the Sharia law advocate that organised a Women’s rights march… You’ll also know when you’re living under Sharia law when you get arrested …

Jackass Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on Face the Nation today to discuss Donald Trump’s inauguration. Graham ripped Russia and Iran ...

Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage.[10...

Everything is offensive

Peaceful assembly of Milo event attendees escalates to violence when "anti-fascist" anarchists show up. Recorded in Red Square at the University of Washingto...

These are clips from Washington DC on the day that President Trump was Inaugurated.

We'd tell SNL to stick to comedy, but they're not good at that either lately.

That was the LAST thing he expected.

President Obama is known for telling some whoppers — “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” is perhaps the most infamous – so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he told a final one as president right before leaving office last week. At his final press conference, Obama promised that he would continue to fight voter-ID laws and other measures designed to improve voting integrity. The U.S. is “the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote,” he claimed. “It traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery, and it became sort of acceptable to restrict the franchise. . . . This whole notion of election-voting fraud, this is something that has constantly been disproved. This is fake news.” The argument over whether or not there is voter fraud will rage on, in part because the Obama administration has spent eight years blocking states from gaining access to federal lists of non-citizen and other possibly illegal voters. Even so, there is abundant evidence that voter fraud is easy to commit. The Heritage Foundation’s website contains hundreds of recent examples of people convicted of stealing votes. But Obama’s first statement — that the U.S. is unique in trying to enforce ballot integrity — is demonstrably false. All industrialized democracies — and most that are not — require voters to prove their identity before voting. Britain was a holdout, but last month it announced that persistent examples of voter fraud will require officials to see passports or other documentation from voters in areas prone to corruption. In 2012, I attended a conference in Washington, D.C., of election officials from more than 60 countries; they convened there  to observe the U.S. presidential election. Most were astonished that so many U.S. states don’t require voter ID. Lawyers with whom I spoke are also astonished to see Obama link of voter ID with the Jim Crow era. As John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog wrote: President Obama says the effort to ensure ballot integrity “traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery.” This is idiotic. When Democrats imposed Jim Crow laws across the South in the wake of Reconstruction, they relied on poll taxes and ridiculously difficult or ambiguous tests — administered only, apparently, to African Americans who hadn’t finished a certain grade level — to maintain Democratic Party control. Voter ID had nothing to do with it. But no one ever said that Barack Obama knows anything about history. And if Obama knew much about geography, he might notice that our neighbors require voter ID. Canada adopted voter-ID requirements in 2007 and saw them reaffirmed in 2010; they have worked smoothly since, with almost no complaints. Mexico’s “Credencial para Votar” has a hologram, a photo, and other information embedded in it, and it is impossible to effectively tamper with it. “Mexico’s paper ballots have a level of sophistication equivalent to legal tender,” Catherine Engelbrecht, of the nonprofit True the Vote organization, told me. “They’ve found a balance between security and access to the polls that has restored confidence in their once tainted elections.” Britain is painfully learning that it too must take steps to restore confidence in its elections. Sir Eric Pickles, a former Conservative cabinet minister, warned earlier this year, in a government-commissioned report titled “Securing the Ballot,” that voter fraud had been allowed to fester in Muslim communities because of “politically correct over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion.” Sir Eric said that the authorities were in a “state of denial” and were “turning a blind eye” to fraud cases. Last month, Theresa May’s government responded to the problem. It announced that “endemic corruption” meant that voters in certain areas will now have to show photo identification. The government may even require people to prove their UK citizenship before granting them the right to vote. It also issued a nationwide ban on political workers handing in large numbers of completed postal ballots on election day. The maximum penalty for voter fraud will be raised from two years to ten years. Legislation is being prepared to allow police to block people from “intimidating” voters near polling places. Chris Skidmore, Britain’s minister for the Constitution, wrote in the Daily Telegraph: We already ask that people prove who they are in order to rent a car, buy a mortgage, or travel abroad — and I believe we should go further by taking the same approach to protect voting rights. In many other transactions, ID is an essential requirement — voting for a democratically elected government, your MP, or your councillor is one of the most important transactions someone can make and it is right that in turn their identity and the security of their vote should be protected. Polls have shown that voter-ID laws and similar measures enjoy great popular support all over the world. In the U.S., a comprehensive 2012 Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of respondents believed that voters should present a photo ID. Polls since then have confirmed that level of support. Backing for voter ID in the Washington Post poll crossed all demographic lines. Backing for voter ID in the Washington Post poll crossed all demographic lines — 66 percent of independents, 60 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of African Americans, and 64 percent of Hispanics. The Post also asked whether respondents thought that the supporters and opponents of voter ID were acting out of genuine concern for fair elections or were instead trying to gain partisan advantage. Respondents replied that voter-ID opponents were acting more out of partisanship than supporters were. “I think that party leaders have tried to make this a Republican versus Democrat issue,” former Democratic state representative Jon Brien, who shepherded Rhode Island’s 2011 voter-ID law through a Democratic legislature, told the Pew Center’s Stateline news service. “It’s not. It’s simply a good-government issue.” Which is precisely why it’s so disappointing to see Barack Obama use it to raise baseless fears that voter ID is a racist form of voter suppression. Even as he leaves office, the president who promised to unify us is continuing his level best to polarize and divide us. — John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

So much for unity...

Dr. Alveda King, the daughter of the Rev. A.D. King, and the niece of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said that celebrities' rhetoric overshadowed the importance of the women's marches taking place across the country on Saturday.

Abortion mill Planned Parenthood has raked in a reported $700 million in profit since the tenure of CEO Cecile Richards, taking in a reported $127 million in profit annually. Yes, that would be the same "nonprofit" corporation

Once again— Tens of thousands of liberal women marched in Washington DC on Saturday against Trump. Then they left their ...

Never go full retard, Ashley...

Nobody actually wants to have a nuanced discussion. Everybody wants to have had a nuanced discussion, at the end of which they got their way. If you want to see this in action, talk to somebody about incomes or wealth. An economist who was doing research on income mobility a few years back shared some interesting case studies. One of them was a fellow who had a modest income for several years after college, a radical drop in income for a couple of years, and then an enormous leap in income thereafter. “I call that one ‘law school,’” he said. Other case studies showed a great deal of variation: A man earning a healthy but not spectacular salary for 20 years had a single year in which his income is a few million dollars — probably a business owner selling his firm at retirement. Wealthy people often have years where they have no taxable income to speak of, and a Washington University study found that a remarkable number of Americans — one in five — will have an income of $100,000 or more for at least one year of their lives. In his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, J. D. Vance reports that his dysfunctional underclass family had periods of surprisingly high income. Reality is complicated. The particulars of the issue are hotly contested, but I do not think that there are very many analysts, left or right, who are happy with the current state of income mobility in the United States. It is a very large part of the political debate, though actual differences in public-policy positions among mainstream U.S. politicians probably are not as important as the broader world-development questions: The post-war era was an unusual time for the United States that was never destined to last indefinitely, with the rebuilt and modernized economies of Western Europe and East Asia cutting into the commanding industrial position we enjoyed in the 1950s; Indians and Chinese turn out to be pretty good at making things and providing services, and the reforms in their political systems and economies, halting and partial though they may be, revolutionized the world economy; the end of the Cold War cleared the way for an expanded global trade regime, which developed more quickly than many had expected as the Internet and other technological progress turbocharged globalization. There’s much more, of course, but the short answer to the implicit question behind so much of today’s economic-policy debate — “Why can’t we have the growth, mobility, and broad consensus of the Eisenhower years?” — is: This isn’t 1958. Instead, we get: “Well, if we had those high 1950s income-tax rates, we’d have that kind of economy again,” or “If we didn’t have all these Mexicans and Chinese competing with us, we’d have that kind of economy again.” There’s an equation with a billion variables, and everybody just picks his favorite one and — “Eureka!” That’s politics. The post-war era was an unusual time for the United States that was never destined to last indefinitely. Our politicians are not especially forward-looking, in the main, and they are not especially imaginative. Washington occasionally has a spasm about the parking of vast amounts of capital in overseas tax havens, but it never occurs to anybody that one possible solution to that problem is to be the tax haven — if your money could live in the world’s largest national economy under the protection of one of the world’s most reliable legal and political systems, why on Earth would you send it to live in Panama? Economists as different as Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman have returned many times to the basic truth that wages are historically correlated with productivity, and that workers in more capital-intensive businesses tend to have higher wages. Investors and workers may at some level compete for income, but their incomes are also linked in complex and unpredictable ways. There are ways to encourage and cultivate that beyond the usual Republican idea of cutting investment taxes and the usual Democratic idea of using the state as an ersatz entrepreneur. But you have to be open to genuinely new ideas, which means you have to be open to learning and to honest discussion. We aren’t. Mainly, what we get — because it is what we demand — is a lot of half-literate moralizing. Case in point, Oxfam’s latest headline-generating bit of nonsense, lamenting the fact that the eight wealthiest men in the world have among them a net worth equal to that of the poorer half of the human race. Shock and horror, etc., until you consider that Oxfam’s global paupers include a great many — millions and millions — of rich people and future rich people. They are rich people who do not have very high net worths, which sounds strange only if you don’t spend very much time thinking about the real world. There are two things that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and other scourges of the modern financial system always demand: less debt and easier access to credit. (No, they do not quite seem to get how those two things are related.) If you are a young professional with a $200,000 income and a $400,000 mortgage on a $500,000 house, you may have a negative net worth, but you aren’t doing too poorly in life. If you are with the firm of Nasty, Brutish, and Short, your Harvard Law loans might outweigh your assets, but they won’t forever. Easy access to credit — and it really never has been easier for people in the developed world — means more debt. Some people use credit wisely, and some do not. Here, too, there are opportunities for policy innovation, but many of them would be unpopular, because they would do things like make it a great deal more difficult for poor people to buy houses or for university administrations to convert federally insured debt into generous private incomes for otherwise marginally employable administrators and purported scholars of increasingly exotic and specific avenues of social grievance. The feelings business is very profitable, and the thinkings business is not. But regardless of your policy preferences, the fact is that the household finances of 25-year-old professionals in the United States and Europe, or those of new homeowners and entrepreneurs in Korea and Singapore, do not tell us much of anything at all about the state of the world’s poor. As Chelsea Follett puts it, Oxfam’s crude model means “a penniless, starving man in rural Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa is far richer than an American university graduate with student debt but a high-paying office job, a $2,000 laptop, and a penchant for drinking $8 designer coffees.” I do not want to be uncharitable to Oxfam, but the fact is that these kinds of crude, clumsy, dishonest studies drive headlines, and headlines drive donations. The feelings business is very profitable, and the thinkings business is not. We’ve just had a weekend of political rioting after progressive-leaning and Democrat-affiliated celebrities and public figures called for, among other things, a military coup d’état to overthrow the democratically elected government of the United States and the imposition of martial law. But after the hysteria dies down — and it will die down — we’ll still be back where we were before: a prosperous, stable, healthy nation with some very serious problems that need addressing, and that cannot be addressed until we learn how to speak and think about them intelligently and until we — we citizens — demand that our leaders do. And that means, among other things, that we forgo rewarding political and media figures with money and power for peddling lies and stupidity. A politician is like any other dumb animal: He’ll do what gets him fed and avoid what gets him whipped. And lament “the system” as much as you like, we citizens still control both the carrot and the stick. — Kevin D. Williamson is the roving correspondent for National Review.

Sean Spicer delivered what I could only descibe as the funniest press conference I have ever watched in my life. It was called to discuss the very serious is...

Mnuchin touted the revitalization of a decades-old regulation on banks during his confirmation hearing on Thursday.

Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics maker, is considering setting up a display-making plant in the United States in an investment that would exceed $7 billion, company chairman and chief executive Terry Gou said on Sunday.

California’s projected budget deficit is rising.

Predictably, the left is having an absolute meltdown.

It turns out the real environmentalists are supporters of Donald Trump. Trump backers helped to clean up trash from the National Mall after piles of it were left behind by feminists, multi-millionaire celebrities and girly men opposed to the new president. Here, a man wearing a white “Make America Great Again” hat could be seen …

Great chart via

Reports are circulating that President Trump will announce Monday that he will relocate the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

I decided to infiltrate the protest to get an objective view of how these protests go down.

The day after President Donald Trump was sworn into office, thousands of women took to the National Mall on Saturday to march against him.