ActRight

The Never Trump movement failed. God?s Will, as always, reigned supreme and despite every ounce of opposition that the Democrats, media, and Never Trumpers could muster, the nation was saved …

Fears of heightened bigotry and hate crimes have turned into reality for some Americans after Donald Trump's presidential win.

And just like that Donald Trump needs to govern. The outsider who shocked the world with his upsets in the primaries and the general election will have to arrive in Washington and take control of a vast and often hostile bureaucracy. With allies nervous and a challenge from adversaries abroad likely to materialize quickly, the choice of secretary of state is his most important appointment.  Naturally, names have already been mentioned in the press as possibilities, and none is better suited to the job than former U.N. ambassador John Bolton. First, the other possibilities: Newt Gingrich is a brilliant thinker and glib talker who would always be one slip of the tongue away from creating an international crisis; Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee was last seen facilitating President Obama’s Iran-deal path through Congress, in one of the prime exhibits of GOP fecklessness in recent years; Rudy Giuliani has done yeoman’s work for Trump, but doesn’t have extensive foreign policy experience, to put it mildly. Bolton has the advantage of being an experienced, straight-talking yet nuanced foreign-policy hand, who also fits the Trump sensibility on national security. Bolton is an American internationalist who believes in the importance of American power.  He is a hard-headed realist whose focus is always the national interest. He negotiated the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, for instance, a global effort to counter illicit trafficking in weapons and materials of mass destruction. It was, and is, a diplomatic rarity—“an activity, not an organization,” as one U.K. diplomat put it. United Nations, take note. Bolton has been around the block—starting his career as a protégé of James A. Baker III—but has never become an establishmentarian or lost his edge. He would understand that he is the president’s emissary to the State Department, not the other way around, and avoid getting captured by Foggy Bottom’s bureaucrats the way, say, a Colin Powell did, or others with less experience likely would. He is a scourge of international institutions and treaties that threaten our interests or sovereignty. In the George W. Bush administration, he removed America’s signature from the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, and negotiated over 100 bilateral agreements to prevent Americans from being delivered into the ICC’s custody. And he negotiated America’s withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty so President Bush could launch a national missile-defense program to protect America from the likes of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. He believes that diplomacy and negotiations should be directed not to reach agreement at any price, but to advance American interests. It is his view, correctly, that the process of negotiation is not, as too many in the State Department see it, an end in itself but simply a means to achieve larger objectives, and always from a position of American strength. On top of all this, Bolton, who endorsed Trump soon after he clinched the Republican nomination in the spring, is respected by all factions of the party. (He is a long-time friend of this magazine and serves on the board of the National Review Institute.) In short, John Bolton is an ideal pick, and his appointment would be a sign that the Trump administration intends to get off to a strong start.

Lack of voter enthusiasm couldn’t be overcome with a campaign message that was focused so heavily on Trump’s divisiveness, some say.

It took the Left about 2.3 seconds to reveal their true colors after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. This wasn't a delicate revelation of a well hidden identity, rather, the curtain was ripped back, uncovering overwhelming hatred.

“BREAKING NEWS: RNC Chair Reince Priebus to be named President-elect Trump's chief of staff, sources tell Fox News”

The RNC chairman helped create the Trump phenomenon, and it’s time conservatives demand he step down.

"Because your little candidate didn't win the race you're gonna lose your ever loving mind and act like a bunch of pu**ies?"

“These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m—I’m fine with that,” Donald Trump said.

Lockheed is now lobbying his transition team

The Anti-Trump Protesters Are No Damn Revolutionaries They Are Lawless Idiots Or get the latest news on my home page: http://whateverhappentocommonsense.com/...

Count billionaire businessman Warren Buffett among the Hillary Clinton supporters who says he's now ready to give president-elect Donald Trump a chance.

Twitter Allows 'Rape Melania' to Trend After Site Explodes with Trump Assassination Threats

“Sources: Trump is expected to pick Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff https://t.co/p47zajcLSu”

Stop the insanity! Days after Donald Trump stunned the world by winning the presidency, liberal America remains in the throes of a massive mental and emotional meltdown. Anti-Trump protests have sp…

As the philosopher said: “Life comes at you pretty fast.” Ten minutes ago, somber progressives were lecturing Donald Trump over his “Make America Great Again” slogan. “America,” they sniffed, is already great. Five minutes later, out came the “F*** AmeriKKKa!” signs and American flags were being burned in the streets. Ten minutes ago, Democrats were fretting that Donald Trump and his partisans would refuse to concede defeat, and insisting that Trump must make a dramatic public commitment to personally working toward a peaceful transfer of power. (Well, he did.) There were whispers of political violence, of riots in the streets, arson, smashed windows, violent assaults. Five minutes later, all of that came to pass — perpetrated by progressives in reaction to Trump’s winning the election fair and square. Ten minutes ago, Democrats were complaining that Trump’s talk of “rigged” elections undermined faith in democracy and in the legitimacy of the United States government. Five minutes later, Democrats were complaining that the elections were rigged against them by an electoral system that treats the states as states — entities with political interests of their own — rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government. With their candidate set to lose the presidency in spite of her being projected to win the most individual votes, Democrats once again turned their rage upon the American constitutional order itself, and out came the signs: “America Was Never Great!” Par for the course, I suppose: We all remember how the Mormons rioted after 2012. Things grew so lawless that a car was spotted double-parked on a Sunday morning across from a church in Provo, and several young men were spotted nearby with their ties slightly askew. And so it goes. As windows were smashed, fires were set, and bystanders beaten, our progressive friends tut-tutted that the protests were “mostly peaceful.” “Mostly peaceful” is another way of saying, “Peaceful, if you ignore the violence.” But even if we set aside the arson and vandalism and the assaults, there is plenty to lament in the non-violent protests, too: Those “AmeriKKKa” signs and burning flags are a reminder that what the Left really hates is not Donald Trump, his supporters, or Republicans at large (though the Left hates all these, too) but the country itself. They believe the United States to be not only imperfect (an understanding of the imperfection of human beings and their institutions is the foundation of conservatism, after all) but wicked, depraved, filled to the gills with hatred and bigotry, one step away from building concentration camps for homosexuals. As windows were smashed, fires were set, and bystanders beaten, our progressive friends tut-tutted that the protests were ‘mostly peaceful.’ Donald Trump of Manhattan and Palm Beach, a man whose personal style makes Liberace look like Danny Trejo, is, according to this view, going to be the great catalyst for anti-gay pogroms. You could make a case for racist and sexist — a pretty good one — but anti-gay? Not really. (One suspects that they just need an easy rhyme for their chants. “Racist, sexist, divorcé! Trump Steaks made a poor filet!”) There is much to dislike about Donald Trump, a man who is morally and intellectually unfit for the office to which he has been elected thanks to a cheesed-off Republican primary electorate and the fact that the alternative was . . . ugh. But the Left does not quite seem to get what he is about. His views on trade, and on economic relations with foreign countries in general, are very close to that of Senator Bernie Sanders, and his views on immigration are not all that different, either: It was Senator Sanders, not Trump, who whispered darkly of a shadowy “open borders” plot being hatched by American billionaires to undermine the economic and political power of the working class. Trump is not quite Ron Paul on foreign policy, but he is the closest thing to a Taft-style non-interventionist that Americans have elected since . . . since they didn’t elect Senator Robert A. Taft. He has some truly daft and potentially destructive ideas . . . that he mainly shares with the people out calling for his assassination. We conservatives sometimes get bored of pointing out double standards, but recall that when well-behaved Republican protesters gathered to criticize some aspects of the Florida recount in 2000, the media described it as a riot — the “Brooks Brothers riot” — and Democrats such as Representative Jerry Nadler wailed that there was a “whiff of fascism” in the air. If the election had gone the other way and crowds of angry Trump voters were out in the streets beating people (they aren’t, though there are hate-crime hoaxes aplenty) there would be klaxons of alarum sounding 24 hours a day — and zero talk of how the protests were “mostly peaceful.” Perversely, the Trump presidency is bearing some worthwhile fruit before it even begins: Once more, dissent is the highest form of patriotism, free speech is an absolute right that must be defended at all costs rather than regulated away in the name of reform, presidential power is to be limited, and the anti-war movement on the left, which went silent right around the time the fellow who won the Nobel Peace Prize started assassinating American citizens in extralegal drone strikes, has once again found its voice. Two cheers for all that. The pretensions of the imperial presidency are going to haunt Democrats for the immediate future. For eight years, Democrats celebrated the aggrandizement of the already inflated presidency left to Barack Obama by George W. Bush. You remember the greatest hits: “If Congress won’t act, I will.” “I have a pen and a phone.” “Elections have consequences.” And, my personal favorite: “I won.” Somebody else won this time around. The pretensions of the imperial presidency are going to haunt Democrats for the immediate future, but they’ll quickly rediscover their belief in limits on the executive. While they’re rediscovering old virtues, they might take a moment to lament Senator Harry Reid’s weakening of the filibuster, an ancient protection of minority interests in the less democratic house of our national legislature. They might also lament Senator Reid’s attempt to gut the First Amendment in order to permit the federal government — which in January will be under the management of Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and — incredibly enough — President Donald Trump — to regulate political speech, deciding who can speak, about what and when, and on what terms. Perhaps they’ll thank those wicked “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court for saving basic political-speech rights. If they are smart, they will rediscover federalism, too, and the peacemaking potential of a school of thought that says in a diverse nation of 320 million souls, there is no reason that life in rural Idaho must be lived in exactly the same way as it is in Brooklyn or Santa Monica. As Charles C. W. Cooke pointed out, the same people who until ten minutes ago denounced federalism — which they mischaracterize as the doctrine of “states’ rights” — as an instrument for the suppression of African Americans are now embracing secession, which, in the American context at least, has a little bit of its own racial baggage. There are other ways of living. The enviable Swiss have such a wonderfully limited and distributed federal system that many of them could not tell you who the president is on any given day. The United States has never really been quite that free of executive pretense, but there was a time in our history when the question of who would decorate a wedding cake for whom was not decided at the national level. Given the current distribution of federal power, perhaps a few Democrats will see the wisdom in returning to such an arrangement. The problem is that while conservatives see “Live and Let Live” as a useful if imperfect instrument of civil peace, progressives view “Live and Let Live” as a distinct moral evil. It is less important to them that California is allowed to be California than that Texas should be forbidden to be Texas. Progressives have since the time of Bismarck had a mania for uniformity, because they believe that uniformity is necessary for their larger project: managing society as though it were a single factory and its people were widgets. You cannot package widgets eight to a box if they vary in size or shape. If our so-called liberals want to bust a few shop windows in Oakland — well, there isn’t much to do in Oakland, anyway. But those of you who are shaking in your Birkenstocks over the election of Donald Trump should consider the possibility that if the office of the presidency is that important to you, then perhaps the most intelligent course of action is not to pin your hopes on controlling it always and forever (something unlikely to happen under truly democratic processes) but to work toward making it less important — to you, and to everybody else, too. You’ll find a great many conservatives ready to join you in that project. — Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

A Muslim woman said Sunday that her viral article explaining why she voted for Donald Trump has angered liberal pals and other Muslims.

President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday appointed Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as his White House chief of staff.

Staffers at the University of Michigan Law School scheduled a post-presidential election event entitled "Post-election Self-care with Food and Play." The event, featuring Play-Doh, bubbles and Leg

The selection of the RNC chairman, a favorite of GOP congressional leaders and recommended by House Speaker Paul Ryan, puts a party insider and establishment figure in a key White House post.

Trump's victory ought to make our journalistic institutions reassess.

If Trump is going to “drain the swamp” he could start by avoiding these establishment Cabinet candidates.

Remember when challenging the outcome of an election was an unprecedented attack on our form of government? For the left, that was then, but now dissent (not to mention whining) is patriotic again.

Al Sharpton made yet another visit to the White House yesterday to offer his pearls of wisdom on “climate change.” How many does that make it for him? And remember, these are just the official logs. Off-the-books meetings aren’t recorded. Don’t believe it? Peruse them for yourself: White House Visitor Records Requests Powered by Socrata …

President-elect Trump is poised to name a White House chief of staff as early as Sunday, but conservative groups are furiously mobilizing against a decision to tap Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, one of Trump's top two choices. Voices on the right, many of whom stood by him during his toughest moments late in the campaign, are up in arms over the possible selection of Priebus to become the top adviser and right-hand man to the incoming president. White House chiefs of staff usually have out-sized sway in other staffing decisions, not to mention playing the role of top counsel and adviser to the president on policy decisions and overall strategy. Even though Priebus walked a tight rope during the general to endorse him, Trump loyalists are arguing that Priebus worked to undermine Trump during the primary and didn't devote the RNC's full get-out-the-vote resources in the final month, and that should disqualify Priebus from the chief-of-staff role.