ActRight

A Drexel University professor who called for "white genocide" Christmas Eve isn't apologizing, and instead says critics of his "satirical" remarks are "violent racists" who are apt to commit genocide

Merry Krampus, you sexist pig! Here are some spicy words you can use to demoralize social justice warriors in 2017! Follow me on Minds.com: www.minds.com/Duc...

For the first time in its 85-year history, the California Public Employees Retirement System, CalPERS, is drastically cutting benefits for public retirees.

Here’s a paradox for you. Whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the immediate response from government officials and the media is: “Let’s not jump to conclusions.” Yet when there are breaking report…

The headline says it all: “Proposed Bill Would Expand Parents’ Rights, but Critics Say It Goes Too Far” What exactly is too far when it comes to parents’ rights? In the case of this story from Fort Worth, Texas, it means that “critics” think parents shouldn’t have the right to know what their children are doing at school. Opposing this belief is Texas state senator Konni Burton, who authored the legislation. She believes that parents should be allowed access to their kids’ personal information, rather than protecting their child’s alleged right to privacy. The fact that legislation is necessary to correct the imbalance between parents’ rights and the separate, independent rights of their minor children is one of the defining characteristics of our current age, one in which the government at all levels has become involved in the private lives of families, dictating child-rearing standards and penalizing parents who do not follow the rules. This condition of overbearing state interference in the lives of families is pervasive, though not coordinated, and is the central reason I wrote my book No Child Left Alone: Getting the Government out of Parenting. The range of activities and choices that have been taken out of the hands of parents only to be decided from on high by politicians, school administrators, and unelected bureaucrats and regulators range from the seemingly innocuous — allowing kids to play unsupervised — to the nearly barbaric — removing children from their parents’ custody because they are obese. The government is telling women what to do with their bodies in the form of pressure to breast-feed, while government departments like the Department of Agriculture and regulatory agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission are making life less tasty by restricting the diets of American schoolchildren and less fun by banning games and toys. As attorney Scott Greenfield noted on his blog after a New Jersey mother was arrested for leaving her toddler in the car unattended for no more than 10 minutes: This isn’t a matter of parenting “best practices,” but whether the failure to adhere to a bubble-wrapped vision of child-rearing forms the basis for criminal prosecution, for inclusion on the child-abuse registry, for loss of civil rights, perhaps career, home, and even the right to remain parent to a child. It all started innocently enough when I enrolled our fourth child in state-licensed day care. We had come to expect and accept all the rules — detailed instructions about how to cut up fruits and vegetables sent from home, a prohibition on plastic bags coming to school, the mandates about slathering children in sunscreen, etc. But I was not prepared when the day care explained that my one request, that my son be swaddled à la baby Jesus for his naps, could not be honored, since the state had banned the practice in licensed facilities. The stated reason for the ban, which has been adopted in more than just my state of Pennsylvania, was safety. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics does not define swaddling as medically necessary, and because the busybodies who wrote the guidelines (funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) that became the law argue that any blankets in cribs could potentially harm a child, swaddling has been outlawed. The fact that this regulation is prophylactic — there are no recorded injuries to infants from swaddling at day care — is not relevant because current safety standards are based on the possibility of harm rather than evidence of such. I eventually got permission from my doctor to have my baby swaddled, but it took a lot of effort and I wondered whether I was alone in thinking that the government had no business deciding for me and the day-care operator what was the best way to care for my kid. I also set out to discover if the experience I had was mirrored elsewhere, and if other parents had suffered from nanny-state parenting. It turned out I didn’t know the half of it. The same “what if” or “worst first” thinking — as Lenore Skenazy, the founder of the Free Range Kids movement and the author of my book’s foreword, has defined it — has been applied in too many other areas of life. Sledding is banned on public hills in various cities because someone might get hurt and the municipality might get sued. A dad in Connecticut was cited for disorderly conduct when he argued with police who wanted him to remove his kids from the banks of the frozen Susquehanna River even though nothing untoward had happened besides a family enjoying an icy wonderland. “This small incident,” the father, Charles Eisenstein wrote on his blog, “reveals a lot about our society.” He continued: First is the presumption that legally constituted authority should decide what an acceptable level of safety is for oneself and one’s family. I suppose going out onto the ice was more dangerous than staying indoors or on the sidewalk, but I deemed it in my children’s best interest to be outdoors in this amazing ice world. Assertions of independent judgment by parents as to the best interests of their offspring are exactly what government nannies are trying to prevent. You might want to make your own kid’s lunch, but when there are government-empowered food inspectors at your kid’s school looking into their lunchbox, you may find that your turkey-and-cheese has been replaced by cafeteria chicken nuggets, as happened to Heather Parker of Raeford, N.C. Some school principals have banned home-packed lunches entirely because they believe menus determined by the geniuses at the USDA are more nutritious than what parents will decide to pack themselves. Assertions of independent judgment by parents as to the best interests of their offspring are exactly what government nannies are trying to prevent. Who gets to determine what’s in the best interest of children is muddy water when it comes to schools in general. In many states, children’s weight and height information is collected at the public school and each child’s body-mass index is calculated, all without permission of parents. The government argues that while it has access to students in its schools, it has the right to collect such basic health information. Some schools don’t stop at collecting this personal information, however. Instead, letters warning that children may be at risk for obesity have been sent to parents. At the same time, parents in Florida are having a very hard time getting their kids’ schools to do the healthy and inexpensive thing by allowing kids to run around during recess. And the parents in Florida aren’t alone. Not only has recess been limited or eliminated at many schools, but what games and activities are allowed during “free play” periods have been restricted. Tag, dodgeball, gymnastics, swing sets, and running have all been banned at one school or another in the name of safety. When parents demand a change, it can take herculean efforts like protests and petitions to get schools to listen. Happily, the advocacy can work, as when Rhode Island governor Gina Raimondo signed a law mandating recess at the state’s elementary schools. In the most heartbreaking instances of the state determining what’s in the best interest of the child, dozens of kids have been removed from their parents for being morbidly obese. The doctors and legal scholars who justify these removals argue that the best interest of the child is being served by the state’s taking control of their lives. But ask the parents and children to whom these removals have happened and you hear a different story. “They say it is for the well-being of the child,” explained Anamarie Regino, 10 years after she was temporarily removed from her parents’ custody for obesity. “But it did more damage than any money or therapy could ever do to fix it.” There are two important lessons to draw from all this government-run child-rearing. The first is how improperly we are defining private life and public life. Only in a world where a healthy population is defined as a public good can the state justify breaking apart families over a health problem that will cause no harm to anyone but the sufferers. #related#The second lesson is that there are both individual parents and groups of advocates across the country who are focused on returning the rights of parents to raise their own children. These parents — Captain Mommies and Daddies, I call them — have had run-ins with the overbearing state and decided to advocate on their own behalf and on behalf of their kids. Then there are organizations like the Family Defense Center, which provides legal defense for parents caught in the child-welfare and legal systems. At ParentalRights.org the goal is to amend the U.S. Constitution and support state laws to empower parents. And the National Association of Parents wants to shape public policy on parents’-rights issues through education and advocacy. As commonplace as nanny-state parenting has become, it will take tremendous effort to change the tide of public policy and the overprotective culture that has brought us to our current situation. But being a good parent, and a good citizen, has never been easy. And it remains as necessary and important as ever. — Abby W. Schachter, a Pittsburgh-based writer, blogs at captainmommy.com.

If President-elect Donald Trump wanted to show he planned to obliterate President Barack Obama’s approach to Israel, he might have found his man to deliver that message in David Friedman, his pick for U.S. ambassador.

The tweet quickly went viral after many conservative websites and individuals spoke out against the tweet.

Boeing and Airbus have both signed huge contracts this month to supply airliners to Iran, the first such deals since international sanctions were lifted.

http://patreon.com/freedomtoons patriarchy oppressing me im at a uni versity a student in gender studies learning about Misogyny Listening to the pocs Never ...

"We have full confidence that the information is accurate."

The Israel-hating Obama Administration may not be done trying to eradicate the state of Israel after it let the vicious UN anti-Israel resolution denying Israel’s claim to the sacred Temple Mount pass; on Monday morning the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds reported that Secretary of State John Kerry will present his framework for Israel and the Palestinians in January, stating that Israel return to the suicidal pre-1967 borders and the Palestinians to have sovereignty over east Jerusalem, which will become the Palesti

One of the great benefits of Hillary Clinton’s shocking election loss is the full-scale meltdown of the American left. Leading the pack: The New York Times, which had set up a prayer shrine in the editorial board conference room. Now, they’ve been relegated to whining about how the Republican Senate wouldn’t approve Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Get out the world’s tiniest violin. Shed a single tear.

(Breitbart) ? Trump Tower is a tourist destination for thousands of people celebrating Donald Trump’s election. Fans of the president-elect are stopping by to eat a taco bowl at the Trump Grill, visit the Trump bar, ride the famous escalators, and purchase Trump gear at the store. Others linger by the golden elevator doors, hoping ?

Dermer calls White House spokesman a ‘master of fiction’; PM defends strident campaign, says he ‘will not turn the other cheek’

A cafe boss at a Turkish paper is accused of insulting the president by saying he would refuse to serve him tea.

Democrats are still in total denial about the election. They’re also still making ridiculous excuses about why they lost. The ...

Arguing that Americans still subscribe to his vision of progressive change, President Barack Obama asserted in an interview recently he could have succeeded in this year's election if he was eligible to run.

Attorney and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed President Obama for "betraying" Israel by allowing a US abstention in a UN security council vote c...

Is Israel's policy of building civilian communities in the West Bank the reason there's no peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or would there still be no ...

The strange thing about bailouts, such as the one Donald Trump and Mike Pence just organized for the Carrier air-conditioner company, is that they are detested in theory but relatively popular in practice, at least when they are put together by your guy. When Barack Obama boasted of having saved GM, he wasn’t scoffed at as a meddling know-nothing who used other people’s money to save incompetent corporate managers and rapacious union goons from their own stupidity and excesses — he was considered a friend of the working man, or at least a well-intentioned would-be friend. The automaker bailouts were never generally popular. A small majority of Americans disapproved of them, but that majority was lopsided: Sixty-three percent of Democrats approved of the bailouts, while 73 percent of Republicans opposed them. Political tribalism is strong here: The Trump-Pence Carrier handout is supported by 40 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents, and a remarkable 87 percent of Republicans, according to a Politico poll. Carrier, it is worth noting, is not a bankrupt, struggling dinosaur manufacturer like GM: It turned a handsome profit of $4 billion last year. United Technologies, a large manufacturing conglomerate that owns Carrier along with Otis elevators and Pratt & Whitney engines, operates a few facilities in Mike Pence’s home state of Indiana. While the presidential campaign was under way, it announced that it was going to relocate one of those facilities, a furnace plant, to Mexico, along with the jobs associated with it. A second facility was to be relocated as well, affecting a total of about 2,000 jobs. That this was happening in his vice-presidential nominee’s backyard was embarrassing for Trump. Trump likes to talk tough about trade and outsourcing, but his actual strategy with Carrier was the usual political approach: showering the firm with other people’s money. In exchange for at least $7 million in tax incentives, Carrier will . . . do almost everything it was planning to do anyway: It will close Indiana facilities, and it will move manufacturing and manufacturing jobs to Mexico. The fig leaf is 800 jobs that will be “saved” in Indiana, a figure that includes at least 300 positions that never were scheduled for offshoring to begin with. Carrier will be using those tax incentives to improve the automation in its U.S. facilities, i.e., to replace Indiana workers with robots instead of Mexicans. United Technologies, like General Electric and Lockheed Martin, is deeply enmeshed in government. It derives at least 25 percent of its revenue from government contracts, 10 percent of it from the Department of Defense alone. It is not a company that can afford to have an enemy in the White House or the Pentagon. Which is to say that Trump, who prides himself on his negotiating skills, entered the negotiation with a very strong hand. Spending a few million dollars a year on more expensive labor in Indiana is chump change compared with the $5.6 billion in aircraft engines and components United sold to the federal government last year. Set aside, for the moment, the fact that using those federal contracts as leverage is kinda sorta technically illegal. It is difficult to imagine that a mere matter of law would prevent Trump from playing that card, and knowledgeable players such as former Indiana lieutenant governor John Mutz, who sits on the board of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, are frank about the larger financial stakes for United, as indeed is the firm’s CEO, who told Jim Cramer that the possibility of losing its government contracts weighed on his decision to give Trump a win in Indiana, however symbolic. In fact, Mutz’s organization had put together a similar proposal and was rejected by the company. Trump’s deal was substantially the same, but it was coming from the president-elect. So, why didn’t Trump get more? The answer is probably straightforward: He didn’t need more. Trump began his public life as a creature of the tabloid press in New York and is now a creature of social media. He was an incompetent casino operator and hotelier, but he understands publicity and has a genuine gift for it — without that, he’d just be another Fifth Avenue doofus who inherited a $200 million real-estate portfolio from his dad. There will be a day or two of headlines with the words “Trump,” “deal,” “Indiana,” and “jobs,” and that suits Trump. The emptiness of the deal will be documented and lamented by the 0.4 percent of Americans who follow these things closely. The Carrier bailout is awful, of course. It is a case of two politicians’ using public funds to bribe a business into doing things that benefit them personally and politically while creating no real long-term economic value. Pence, who dropped his free-market principles like the world’s hottest potato once he got within sniffing distance of presidential power, can burnish his populist credentials at the taxpayers’ expense, and Trump can get ready to flit on to the next publicity stunt. This is not part of an economic-development agenda: It is theater. But the emerging “Superman” politics here are truly poisonous. One of the genre conventions of superhero stories is the compression of all the world’s drama into the immediate presence of the hero — only his actions and intentions are relevant. People may be dying all over the world, but Superman saves Lois Lane. (Comic-book movies have lately subverted that convention by focusing on the collateral damage done by superheroes to the cities in which they live.) What that means in the context of our contemporary presidential politics is that no one takes any note of the fact that Carrier is not the only HVAC company in the United States or the only industrial concern in Indiana. Carrier has competitors that employ Americans, pay taxes, and produce real economic value, and they have been put at a relative disadvantage by the political favoritism extended to Carrier. What about them? They’re not on the stage, so they do not matter. What is important to understand here is that this is not part of an economic-development agenda: It is theater. It is an adolescent fantasy of political power, and wherever Superman happens to land is where the action is. Nothing else is relevant. It does not matter that there is no broader logic at work: Small displays of efficacy can work to create an illusion of general efficacy. It is busyness as business. #related#This is, by his own account, Trump’s conception of the purpose of the presidency: to go from situation to situation and “make deals.” But a long-term economic program for the United States — one that accounts for, e.g., that big automation investment in Indiana and what it means for the future of the American work force — is not a deal to be made. Preventing a single symbolically important act of offshoring is a fundamentally different thing from understanding the underlying economic forces that make that offshoring attractive — as the Germans will tell you, it isn’t just about low wages — and governing in a way that puts those forces to work in Americans’ interests. Trump’s big idea so far is spending $7 million of other people’s money to delay an embarrassing headline. Some deal. Some deal-maker. — Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent. This article originally appeared in the December 31, 2016, issue of National Review. * National Review magazine content is typically available only to paid subscribers. Due to the immediacy of this article, it has been made available to you for free. To enjoy the full complement of exceptional National Review magazine content, sign up for a subscription today. A special discounted rate is available for you here.

Merry Christmas! Subscribe for more placeboing remixes! Thanks to Club Visuals for some of the VJ loop background animations: https://www.youtube.com/channel...

Three Christians were stabbed by the mujahideen in Langeborgne, Switzerland on Christmas morning. The Christians were attempting to go to ...

No vote in the echo chamber of the Security Council can change the fact of Palestinian weakness and Israeli strength at this pivotal moment in world history.

"Proves how out of touch they are."