ActRight

AN ENTREPRENEUR from Germany has created trousers with the aim of protecting women from possible sex attacks while they are out jogging - and the first 150 were sold out immediately.

Rachel Dolezal has been disinvited from a speaking event at a Martin Luther King Jr. festival.

Daily Mail: Trump Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon Says 'Deplorables' Need to Hold Administration Accountable

Anderson Cooper Refuses To Admit To Kathy Griffin He Voted For Hillary Clinton Kathy Griffin fails to get Anderson Cooper to admit he voted for Hillary Clint...

Trump claims that his policies of trade restrictions, immigration restrictions, tax cuts, and higher federal government spending will create 25 million new jobs and will nearly double the current economic growth rate over the next decade. [...] several of Trump’s policies provide nothing more than a false sense of hope, particularly to those workers who are the least skilled, and who are the most vulnerable to economic dislocations arising from globalization and technological change. The United States benefits enormously from international trade, which provides not only a much wider range of goods for Americans to purchase, but also benefits the average American household by about $10,000 per year from lower prices. [...] U.S. trade restrictions would not make our industries more competitive. The Commerce Department estimates that three jobs are lost in the candy industry alone for every sugar job that is “saved” by protection. [...] hiking U.S. tariffs will raise the cost of the raw and intermediate imported goods that comprise our complex international supply chain. [...] Trump has not offered any proposal to deal with the looming imbalances of Social Security. Trump’s immigration plans make his goal of creating 25 million jobs virtually unattainable. Because of the accelerating retirement of workers from the Baby Boom generation, economists broadly agree that there is almost no chance the U.S. can create 25 million jobs in the next 10 years without considerable immigration.

Many conspiracy theorists have declared over the years that there's no two-party system in America. They believe that it's an illusion designed to present a picture of constant battle when in reality there's only one consolidated party that always pushes in the same basic direction. This is almost entirely untrue with one major exception.

University of Kansas students are being offered buttons through the school's library system meant to make their preferred gender pronouns clear.

The George Washington University is named for: a) America’s first president b) the president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention c) the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army d) all of the above If you struggled to answer that question, you may be a product of the George Washington University. Recently, GW — a 25,000-student private university located in Washington, D.C.’s Foggy Bottom neighborhood — eliminated its American-history requirement for undergraduate history majors, making it theoretically possible to graduate from GW with a history degree without ever having had to take a college-level course in U.S. history. Of course, GW’s decision is hardly novel. In July, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that “only 23 undergraduate history programs at the U.S. News & World Report’s top 25 national universities, top 25 public institutions, and top 25 liberal arts colleges require a single U.S. history class,” and where the requirement remained, students could fulfill it with courses such as “Mad Men and Mad Women” (Middlebury College) and “Hip-Hop, Politics, and Youth Culture in America” (University of Connecticut). But there is a special irony in this latest installment of the trend — and a particularly acute demonstration of how the elite American university is failing its students. GW, like many elite institutions of higher learning, is going global. On its “Our Priorities” webpage, GW presents a “formula for moving the world forward,” declaring its mission to be “finding solutions to national and global problems.” This is the trend in higher education. Stanford University is “one of the world’s great universities.” Columbia University calls itself “one of the world’s most important centers of research,” emphasizes its support for “research and teaching on global issues,” and aims “to convey the products of its efforts to the world.” Down the road, New York University, the height of cosmopolitanism, boasts that it has “50,000 students at three degree-granting campuses in New York City, Abu Dhabi, and Shanghai, and at study away sites in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North and South America.” Put another way, the only continent from which NYU is institutionally absent is Antarctica. “Globalism” as the term of art for a sinister, George Soros–funded “New World Order” has become the bête noire of a particular strain of contemporary politics. But the word “globalism” is an accurate, neutral description of the type of thinking that has characterized elite universities since the end of World War II. To the administrators and academics who revise these institution’s mission statements, the nation-state has had its day. Local attachments breed conflict. Peace on Earth will reign when people share the intimacy of neighborhoods at the distance of nations. We need to work toward a “global community.” Barack Obama was only parroting his education when he declared himself a “citizen of the world.” That’s not an ignoble vision. But “the world” is not a thing like “France” or “Chile” or “the United States.” “The world” does not provide a particular lineage or a set of customs or a canon of stories that helps a person situate himself in time and space, that helps to constitute a unique and coherent identity. No one’s home is “the world.” ‘The world’ has no citizens, and those who hope to change it must do so by way of particular places and specific, local loyalties. In fact, the George Washington University was founded with something like the opposite in mind. “It has always been a source of serious regret with me to see the youth of these United States sent to foreign Countries for the purpose of Education,” George Washington wrote in 1799, “often before their minds were formed, or they had imbibed any adequate ideas of the happiness of their own.” Too frequently, he lamented, they contract “principles unfriendly to Republican Governmt [sic] and to the true & genuine liberties of Mankind; which, thereafter are rarely overcome.” As a remedy, Washington in his will bequeathed his 50 shares in the Potomac Company “towards the endowment of a UNIVERSITY to be established within the limits of the District of Columbia,” to which “the youth of fortune and talents from all parts thereof might be sent for the completion of their Education in all the branches of polite literature; in arts and Sciences, [and] in acquiring knowledge in the principles of Politics & good Government.” In 1821, by an Act of Congress, Washington’s benevolence became the Columbian College in the District of Columbia, renamed in 1904 “the George Washington University,” in honor of its de facto founder. The appropriateness — in 1799 or now — of a “national university” is debatable, but Washington’s larger vision deserves renewed consideration: He wanted the American university to be an American university, in its educational activities faithful to the unique history, circumstances, and meaning of the fledgling country in which it stood. The American university should cultivate leaders with a devotion to their nation, not an intellectual loyalty to an abstract notion. Times having changed, nurturing patriotism now smacks of indoctrination, and elite universities are eager not to tempt a flare-up of nationalism. But the result is not increased global solidarity; it’s more and more elite anomie, as the products of elite institutions absorb the message that natural, concrete loyalties — to country, chief among them — are toxic, and struggle to muster the same affection for high-minded ideological projects. #related#There is a place for cosmopolitanism, for worldliness, for a cultured touch, just as there is a place for international coordination and cooperation. Washington himself hoped his university would help students free themselves from “local prejudices & habitual jealousies” that “when carried to excess, are . . . pregnant of mischievous consequences to this Country.” But the rebel against the British Empire was not under the misimpression that the United States was merely a larval stage on the way to a more perfect global union. That is the view of many of our elite academic institutions, which are keen to speed the process along. But “the world” has no citizens, and those who hope to change it must do so by way of particular places and specific, local loyalties. If the George Washington University wishes to change the world, it might start by relearning its own history. — Ian Tuttle is the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute. 

And I provide several rights-based arguments for immigration here. Image Source: nobeastsofierce/Shutterstock

A friend of mine treated himself to a new revolver for Hannukah, a Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum. He and I took it to the range a few days ago to break it in. For the uninitiated, the S&W .44 Magnum is the gun Dirty Harry describes as the “the most powerful handgun in the world; would blow your head clean off.” It’s unbelievable fun to shoot, and, as you might guess, very, very loud. We were shooting at an indoor range, in Connecticut, and the noise led to a discussion of pistol silencers. My friend mentioned that in a couple of European countries where silencers are legal, it’s considered rude not to use one when you’re firing around other people. This makes sense; I’ve shot a few silenced guns over the years, and — aurally speaking — they are much, much more pleasant than their un-silenced counterparts. Thanks to movies — and the name “silencers” — people tend to think that silencers make guns silent. They don’t. What they do is turn something so loud that it damages your ears into something so loud that it merely hurts them. When you shoot a silenced gun, unless it’s a very low-caliber gun or its silencer is unusually large and effective, it’s still prudent to wear hearing protection. As it turns out, in Connecticut, it’s sort-of impossible to get a pistol silencer. In 1994, congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban. It was an asinine, ineffectual law that banned certain aesthetic features of guns, such as pistol grips, and certain features of convenience, such as adjustable stocks. It had no impact on the lethality of guns; a gun with a pistol grip can’t kill you any deader than a gun without one, or than a car. All the Assault Weapons Ban did was cause a nuisance. After Congress allowed the law to expire in 2004, Connecticut kept a version of it on its own books, as did many liberal states. Among the things that it makes illegal — it’s been expanded over the years — are threaded barrels, which you need in order attach a silencer to a gun. So while silencers are technically legal, you can’t buy a gun to which a silencer can be attached, unless it is a “pre-ban” gun and hasn’t left Connecticut, in which case it’s grandfathered in: A pistol with a threaded barrel that was legal in Connecticut before the ban is still legal today. Such guns are highly sought after, and now come with an enormous premium. Calls to a few gun shops and a look at the classifieds turned up only a handful for sale in the whole state, each selling for a 300 or 400 percent markup over the same pistol, post-ban. A new Glock 17, for instance, retails for four or five hundred dollars; a threaded barrel costs another hundred or so. One pre-ban threaded Glock 17 for sale in Connecticut costs $1,600. As of this writing, it appears to be the only one for sale in the state. An un-silenced Glock 17 will register at just over 160 decibels. According to Purdue University, a jet take-off at 25 yards registers at 150 decibels and will rupture your eardrums. This is why people generally wear hearing protection while they shoot guns. You know when people don’t wear hearing protection while they shoot guns? When someone breaks into their homes and they use their guns in self defense. The Trumps should also support a congressional overturning of all state laws which throw up arbitrary, nuisance restrictions on gun ownership. A silencer will bring a Glock 17 down to about 130 decibels, which is slightly louder than a pneumatic riveter but still 10 decibels short of the threshold for permanent hearing damage. If you have a lot of disposable income in Connecticut, you can exercise your right to self-defense and keep your hearing. If you don’t — if you are, for instance, poor and living in a high-crime neighborhood, Connecticut wants you to choose your ears or your life. How does this not infringe on one’s right to keep and bear arms? It’s disgraceful. Fortunately, there’s someone on the case: Donald Trump Jr. In late September, Trump Jr. gave an interview to an American silencer company called SilencerCo, in which he — like my friend — pointed out that when he shoots in Europe, the guns he uses are almost invariably silenced. “It’s about safety,” he said. “If you had noise levels in any other industry as you [have] in shooting sports, OSHA would be all over the place; people would be going crazy.” Silencer regulations, he argued, are “arbitrary policies” enacted by “people who don’t know what they’re talking about.” #related#Trump Jr. suggested that his father will support legislation to ban silencer bans, and everyone who likes being able to hear should be thankful if he does. The Trumps should also support a congressional overturning of all state laws which throw up arbitrary, nuisance restrictions on gun ownership: rules restricting barrel length, stock adjustability, firing rate, magazine capacity — all the stupid mandates of people who’ve never so much as fired a gun, and couldn’t make a rational argument that these restrictions save lives if their own lives depended on it. Then the Trumps should support a repeal of the asinine 1986 federal “Firearm Owners Protection Act” that invented a lot of these stupid ideas in the first place. Let’s #MakeGunsGreatAgain. — Josh Gelernter is a weekly columnist for the online Weekly Standard and a frequent contributor to NRO.

...

Nancy Hayes - Obama wanted America to give up freedoms to become part of this 'One World" government'!

Over his two terms, President Barack Obama unleashed a copious amount of regulations, his administration adding thousands of pages to the Federal Register, which now totals 97,110 pages of regulations, a record number. Here are 11 of Obama's worst regulations imposed by his administration.

An armed assailant who is believed to have been dressed in a Santa Claus costume has opened fire at a nightclub in Istanbul during New Year's celebrations, killing at least 35 people and wounding 40 others, according to Istanbul's governor and Turkey's state-run news agency.

We're poised to have a more liberated culture in 2017 and reject political correctness completely. We just have to make it happen.

In the future, Americans — assuming there are any left — will look back at 2016 and remark: “What the HELL?”

A report recently published in the Washington Post late Friday night boldly claimed a code that the Obama administration has essentially tied to a Russian

President Obama used his final weekly address in 2016 to make it plainer than ever that he won't retire quietly once Donald Trump is sworn in as president. Couching his address to the nation as assurance that he will remain committed to defending the progress achieved by his administration, the president made it crystal clear that he intends to be a thorn in President Trump's side after the official handover of power on Jan. 20. Offering the clearest indication yet of his plan to be active on the political scene after he is ostensibly back in private life, Obama said Saturday, As I prepare to take on the even more important role of citizen, know that I will be there with you every step of the way to ensure that this country forever strives to live up to the incredible promise of our founding — that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve every chance to live out our dreams.

The "anything goes" media mentality when it comes to Russia strikes again.

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, tweeted, "What took you so long?"

TV personality says people can act "completely mad" when they think government has failed them.

it would seem that Washington Post's story about Russian hackers attacking an American power grid was greatly overinflated.

What began as a mere afterthought ended up saving the Constitution from its Anti-Federalist critics, and the Bill of Rights today looms larger.

Along with the unpredictable ladies from The View, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews can almost be guaranteed to make daily appearances on the pages of NewsBusters. Whether it’s making inappropriate statements or coming up with asinine names for conservatives, Matthews has provided decades of entertainment for those on the right.

The Montana town of Whitefish has become an unlikely flashpoint in the rise of the so-called "alt-right," due to Richard Spencer's residence there.