ActRight

After a Newsweek report that shed light on Trump’s illegal business with Castro’s Communist Cuba in 1988, Florida Senator, and former rival for the GOP nomination, Marco Rubio is expressing some concerns. “I hope the Trump campaign is going to come forward and answer some questions about this, because if what the article says is true — and I’m not saying it is, we don’t | Read More

Felons in California will now have the right to vote behind bars thanks to AB 2466, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Wednesday.

On Thursday, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) was seeking a vote on a bill he introduced with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to make it a federal crime to commit the animal abuse known as "crushing." The move to vote on the bill was crushed - by Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

An exclusive piece by historian Richard Jay has been authorized for publication, and it is going viral:   Donald Trump & Sam Adams: WHEN BOTH EMPIRES AGAINST THEM STRUCK BACK          -By Rich Simlick The Donald these days seems to consistently outmaneuver the rebuke of both th

It's no shocker that the mainstream media is backing Clinton. We learned in the DNC Leaks that the Clinton campaign was open to colluding with the media..

Just like ABC’s interviews with VPs Mike Pence and Tim Kaine on Monday morning, this week’s interviews with the two presidential campaign managers were staggeringly different from each other. On Tuesday’s The View, the panel barely made Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook sweat, but pummelled Donald Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway on Thursday with harsh questions. Completely serious, Whoopi actually remarked at the end of the program that they treat every guest "fair" and with uncomfortable questions. But watching the two interviews side-by-side, that's a far cry from reality.

Anderson Cooper asks Alicia Machado about allegations that she was the getaway driver in a Venezuelan murder case, in which the judge presiding over the case...

When my thoughts first turned to this article, I imagined taking a case-by-case, issue-by-issue approach to demonstrate that government?s role when seen through a Constitutional lens is to em…

Trump has criticized Alicia Machado for her weight gain while she was Miss Universe.

He has a 10 year old son with a computer, he knows what he's talking about.

In one of the paradoxes of modern life, America is deeply polarized in part because it is increasingly united around a common idea: that life is getting worse, and it is someone else’s fault. The unity is in the notion that life is getting worse. The polarization lies in the allocation of blame. Hence much of the desperation surrounding the 2016 election. Every cycle we hear that this election is the most important in our lifetime. Rarely in modern times, however, has rhetoric reached the heights of 2016. This is a “Flight 93 election”? “Charge the cockpit or you die”? Really? And it’s not just rhetoric. We see rioters looting cities because of rumors, and at political rallies thugs are beating not just protesters but also even, on occasion, random citizens who dare show their face at the wrong place and the wrong time. Americans feel helpless. They feel as if their lives and fortunes are in the grip of forces they can’t control. And there are reasons for their feelings. It’s true that middle-class and working-class Americans are sliding farther and farther behind America’s upper middle class. It’s true that wages have stagnated and declined (at least until a promising increase this year). It’s true that poverty is becoming “sticky” — that millions of Americans who are born in poverty will die in poverty. But here’s the core problem with this feeling of helplessness. It’s fundamentally false. In fact, aside from circumstances such as debilitating illness or disability, it’s almost entirely false. The great, empowering privileges of American life are still available to every citizen — privileges that are more potent than the supposedly almighty “white privilege” that allegedly taints our culture. The first privilege is parental privilege. If you get married, stay married, and wait to have children until you’re married — all things within the joint control of you and your spouse — then you dramatically increase the chances not only of your own prosperity but of your kids’ as well. Poverty in married households is extraordinarily low compared with that in single-parent households, and children who grow up in stable homes do better on virtually every measure of economic and emotional well-being. Next, there is educational privilege. Not only does virtually every American have the opportunity to stay in school, all have unprecedented access to financial aid to start (and finish) college. Combine a married family with a college degree, and you’ve not only created a firewall against poverty, you’ve taken the key steps to achieving the American Dream. The data are clear: Married, educated families do very, very well in modern America. In fact, they do so well that the upper middle class is “larger and richer than ever.” And that brings us to the final privilege — class privilege. A married, educated family simply has a greater margin for error. Kids who make mistakes can fall back on the considerable resources of their parents. They live and work with other families who provide connections when jobs are lost. They have friends that can help in the case of financial emergencies. There are choices that can lead to profound downward mobility, but just ask still-prosperous doctors and lawyers who’ve endured, say, bouts of drug or alcohol rehabilitation how much resources can help a person bounce back even from catastrophic mistakes. None of this is original. All of it has been thoroughly explored from left and right in books such as Charles Murray’s Coming Apart and Robert Putnam’s Our Kids. Searing first-person memoirs such as J. D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy bring the data to life, putting names and faces with the terrible statistics. But the challenge of our time is to teach a culture that there is no political solution to what is at its core a cultural problem — a problem in the human heart. We live in a time when the one unforgivable sin is judgment. For a long time now, smart folks have scorned the notion that any given person can “have it all” — that there is a perfect state of bliss where they can be empowered at work without making any sacrifice at home. We know there are tradeoffs. It’s time now to drill into the culture that you can’t “do it all” — that instant gratification can yield permanent consequence and that the price of self-indulgence can be too high to pay. Consider, for example, the incredible cost of divorce. For an ex-husband and ex-wife to do as well as they did under one roof, they have to enjoy greater economic opportunity than they did when married — all in the midst of personal emotional turmoil that brings many people to their knees. It’s simple — two households are far more expensive than one. #related#We live, however, in a time when the one unforgivable sin is judgment. Who are we to tell others what they should do with their lives? Their choices are their choices, and they’re still entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else. Right? But one can never repeal the laws of nature and of nature’s God. The person who predicts the awful consequences of family disintegration and lack of self-discipline is no more culpable for the outcome than is the weather forecaster for the tornado that sweeps through town. So here we are — in an era when even alleged conservatives feel that it’s too cruel to tell families to take primary responsibility for their own prosperity. When “our” people start to suffer from the same social maladies — because they make many of the same choices — as “their” people do, it’s remarkable the extent to which the language of personal responsibility drops from the political lexicon. “We built that” is so 2012. Now, it’s “I alone can solve.” Do you feel helpless? You’re not. Do you believe the 2016 election will represent a turning point in your life? It won’t. Your rage is misplaced. In America you still have far more control over your destiny than the government ever will, and even the best nation with the most virtuous elite can’t truly fix what you choose to break. — David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

A fed-up Donald Trump supporter took matters into his own hands after his Trump signs kept being stolen or vandalized.

Learn more at http://judiciary.house.gov Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/housejudiciary Twitter: https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary Instagram: https://www...

The congressional auditor's report focuses on how the government handles fees paid by insurers for Obamacare's reinsurance program.

A new report on Thursday morning is making waves after alleging there was a secret connection between Donald Trump and communist Cuba in the late 1990s. However

Students can now decide which pronoun they want to be referred to.

Last week, one of the most significant events in the history of our constitutional republic in our lifetime occurred: Delegations, consisting primarily of state legislators, from all 50 states gathered in Colonial Williamsburg with the intent to rein in the federal government’s abuse of power. An assembly of 137 delegates representing every state quietly convened in a simulation that, when convened officially, could effectively strip Washington of its purloined power overnight. Legally. What’s this all about? Article V of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and we’re all familiar with that process. It’s happened successfully 27 times in our nation’s history, and it’s how we’ve accomplished some important things, like ending slavery and guaranteeing women’s right to vote. But Article V also grants the same power to the states to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. That power hasn’t been exercised in American history — yet. The reason this provision was added to the Constitution, just two days before the close of the 1787 convention, was a concern raised by George Mason. In keeping with the checks and balances of the Framers, Mason believed that no branch of government should have the power to determine the extent of its own power. He predicted that someday the federal government would abuse the carefully enumerated powers bestowed in the text of the Constitution. When that day arrived, structural amendments would be needed to curtail federal usurpations, but if Congress alone had the power to propose amendments, no corrections would ever be forthcoming. Based on this clear-headed observation, the Framers unanimously added the option for the states to propose amendments through a convention of states. The U.S. Constitution is a grant of specific, limited powers to the federal government to fulfill its duty to preserve and protect individual rights and promote the “general welfare.” But the Founders recognized that the federal government might overstep and abuse those powers, and that it was highly unlikely Congress would then act to restrain itself. So the Founders also gave the states the power to convene together and propose amendments to the Constitution to restrain federal abuses, in what Article V calls a “convention” of the states. Article V reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states . . .  In other words, two-thirds (34) of the states pass an application for a convention to propose amendments, then the states choose their delegates, and whatever amendments are passed at that convention by the states still need to be ratified by the same process as any congressional amendment. Over the years, the states have enacted over 400 applications for a convention, but none has ever been called, because two-thirds of the states have never agreed on the subject matter for such a convention. Several states have already called for a convention to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on federal officials. It was this application that formed the framework for the convention-of-states simulation last week in Colonial Williamsburg. Every state sent delegates, who spent two days debating dozens of ideas for amendments under these general topics. The simulated convention passed significant amendment proposals on the following six ideas: 1. Requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt2. Imposing term limits on Congress (effective retroactively)3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by allowing an easy congressional override5. Requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, which legalized the federal income tax6. Giving the states (by a three-fifths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order This is the Founders’ solution to Washington’s hunger for power and institutional corruption, and the states are rallying. Other amendment proposals were discussed and debated, including term limits on the Supreme Court and giving the states the power to vacate a Supreme Court opinion. The simulation lasted only two days, but the real convention of states would have sufficient time to consider amendments and carefully craft final texts. Importantly, the Convention does not have power (just as Congress does not have power) under Article V to rewrite or completely overhaul the U.S. Constitution, or propose amendments beyond the scope of the application passed through each state legislature. Two of the nation’s foremost constitutional attorneys have written extensively on the procedural safeguards of a convention of states, and this simulation showed exactly how and why it will work as a check on the federal government, exactly as intended. This is the Founders’ solution to Washington’s hunger for power and institutional corruption, and the states are rallying. Going into the 2017 legislative sessions, eight states have passed the convention of states application and another 30 states have considered it. We all need to pay attention to the states and the Convention of States Project. We may feel horribly frustrated at national-level politics and parties for dozens of reasons. But we have one very important reason to remain hopeful for the preservation of liberty — at the state level, the convention of states can and will happen. We can and should get involved in our states and help lobby our legislators to pass the application for a convention. The future of our country doesn’t rest solely on the results in November. There is a much bigger and better solution in the U.S. Constitution itself — in Article V. — Michael Farris is the co-founder of the Convention of States Project. He is a constitutional-law attorney, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, and the chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and a professor of legal studies at Colorado Christian University. She is the author of the book The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution and a fellow at the Centennial Institute.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The nonpartisan investigative agency of Congress says the Obama administration failed to follow the president's health care law in a $5 billion dispute over compensating insurers for high costs from seriously ill patients.

A feud between neighbors in Warren turned violent and it was all caught on camera.

French Jews, who comprise the third largest Jewish population in the world, “feel threatened."

“He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

HUD's finalized Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule was viewed as a great achievement for the Obama Administration when it went into effect in July 2015. Lately, however, some communities are rejecting the funding associating with the rule.

Instead of walking around with a battered copy of "The Catcher in the Rye" in her back pocket, Hillary Rodham carried a copy of Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative."

In the Palmer Luckey case, some people want Silicon Valley to emulate the enormously successful creative culture of the Soviet Union.

A woman who claims she was raped by Bill Clinton repeated the charge Wednesday as she responded to the family's attempts this week to downplay the former president's many sex scandals. [Y]ou said you don't remember a time in your life that your parents weren't being attacked, Juanita Broaddrick said in a series of tweets addressed to Chelsea Clinton. There's a very good reason for this — your parents are not good people, she said. Broaddrick, who maintains Clinton raped her in a hotel room in 1978, went on the offensive against the Clintons in response to fallout from the first presidential debate Monday. Donald Trump's team have patted him on the back for not going after the Democratic nominee during the debate with remarks about her husband's past infidelities. In response to the Trump camp praising the GOP nominee's supposed discipline, Chelsea Clinton said in an interview that the whole storyline is a distraction.