ActRight

A man claiming to be Bill and Hillary Clinton?s ?fixer? – hired to cover up their ?dirtiest schemes,? including steamy sex romps and a major scandal involving former deputy White House counsel Vince Foster – says the Clintons have an open marriage, patronize hookers, buy off news reporters and coordinated a scheme to destroy White House intern Monica Lewinsky [?]

Check out this video on Streamable using your phone, tablet or desktop.

Survey: Trump has 38-point lead over Clinton in Wyoming photo h/t Gage SkidmoreAccording to a recent University of Wyoming survey, Wyoming will likely remain red state in this year's Presidential election.The survey found Trump to be the preference of 58 percent of likely voters in Wyoming and Clinton the preference of 20 percent, with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson preferred by 9 percent and independent candidate Jill Stein by 2 percent.Telephone interviews with 722 Wyoming residents selected at random were conducted Oct. 5-11 by the Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center’s Survey Research Center. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.“Republican candidates have had margins over their Democratic challengers of between 32 percent and 40 percent in the past four presidential elections,” Political Science Professor and survey director Jim King says. “This year’s election appears to fit neatly with this history.”What is different, according to King, is that a majority of voters are basing their decisions on opposition to candidates rather than on support for a particular candidate.“When we asked survey respondents if they were mainly supporting a candidate or opposing other candidates, 40 percent said their vote was in support of a candidate and 59 percent said their vote was in opposition to a candidate,” King says. “This pattern appears consistently across Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein voters.”Dissatisfaction with Clinton and Trump as the major-party candidates is an important factor in these results. Nearly half of survey respondents -- 47 percent -- indicated they are “very dissatisfied” with the choice between the Democratic and Republican nominees. Another 27 percent are “somewhat dissatisfied,” bringing the combined “dissatisfied” responses to three-fourths of the survey’s sample.In the race to succeed Cynthia Lummis as U.S. representative from Wyoming, Republican Liz Cheney holds a 53 percent to 37 percent lead over Democrat Ryan Greene among likely voters. This suggests that the results of the 2016 contest will reflect past years when the House seat was open, as Dick Cheney, Barbara Cubin and Lummis all won their first congressional elections with between 53 and 59 percent of the vote.

The alarmist community has had almost three decades to prove its assumptions about global warming but still hasn't made a convincing case.

Amazing what propaganda combined with a lack of knowledge can do...

A new, long-term study by the Media Research Center underscores Donald Trump’s claims that the press is against him. Analysts for the conservative watchdog evaluated evening news coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC during a 12-week period from July through mid-October to find that 91 percent of the stories on Mr. Trump were negative.

A SYRIAN refugee with four wives and 23 children has sparked outrage after it was claimed he was receiving a staggering £320,000 a year in benefits.

A March 2015 email chain released by WikiLeaks Tuesday is further proof that President Obama lied to the American people when he said he found out about Hillary Clinton’s private email server from news reports. “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news,” Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin wrote to Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary Nick Merrill, and others. “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” Merrill then forwarded Schwerin’s email to longtime Clinton confidante and attorney Cheryl Mills, who sent it to campaign Chairman John Podesta. “We need to clean this up,” she wrote to Podesta. “He has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” Obama clearly lied when he told CBS’ Bill Plante that he learned about Clinton’s use of a private email account

Sorry not sorry.

In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC). The networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes).

Republican nominee Donald Trump has gained the support of yet another legendary college sports figure.

"He Has Emails From Her."

The Trump circus has distracted from genuine scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's approach to global challenges if she becomes president - and the signs are not good.

The rapist, Amir A, 20, had not had sex in four months, so he dragged the boy into the changing rooms to attack him, but judges in Austria want evidence the boy was forced to act against his will.

we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov See email on WikiLeaks

Donald Trump, in characteristically muddled and haphazard fashion, said he thought the election might end up “rigged” (if he lost). Therefore, he would not endorse the November 8 result if he found that fear confirmed — unless, of course, in Jacksonian fashion, he managed to win. All hell broke loose, from both the Left and principled conservatives, that Trump’s allegations had somehow undermined the American electoral process itself. Not likely. Questioning the integrity of election votes was a national pastime in 1824 (“corrupt bargain”), 1876 (“compromise of 1877”), and again in 1960. Bitching over losing, of course, is not the same thing as armed insurrection in the fashion of 1860, when furor erupted over Lincoln’s election. Any candidate, whether feeding conspiracies or out of genuine concern for electoral misconduct, can say whatever he or she wishes, without the deleterious national consequences that pundits decry. Bad sportsmanship and manners are not synonymous with constitutional subversion. “Selected, not elected” was a Democratic talking point after the 2000 Bush victory. In a speech two years after that election, a now sanctimonious Hillary Clinton echoed those “selected” charges against the Bush presidency. But so what? In 2004, the trope that Ohio was rigged and thus cost John Kerry the election was standard liberal boilerplate. An embittered Kerry was the sore loser that Trump will be if he comes up short. Kerry’s friend columnist Mike Barnicle was quoted years later of Kerry’s inability to accept legitimate defeat: “For a long period, after 2004, every time he even half fell asleep, all he saw was voting machines in the state of Ohio.” Let us hope that Trump does not become as unhinged as Al Gore became — for years, the former vice president could not speak publicly without screaming in vein-bulging style, and seemed to be obsessed by George W. Bush in Carthago delenda est fashion. Indeed, in the last week after the Trump blunderbuss declaration, an entire mini industry has emerged, chronicling prior examples of Democrats questioning election results or alleging past evidence of voting fraud. It would, of course, have been wiser for Trump to worry out loud about localized corruption, rather than to suggest in conspiratorial fashion that a nationwide cabal was devoted to rigging the election. But then again, we have rarely seen anything like the recent disclosures of pathetic efforts at massaging the vote. Trump’s sin was one of magnitude, not of mischaracterizing the intent or culpability of his opponents: He is right that many wish to corrupt the voting, but hardly certain that in the key battlegrounds they are powerful enough to sway an entire state’s vote count. Recently disgraced and resigned Democratic operatives, who were in the pay of the Democratic National Committee (and one of whom was a very frequent visitor to the Obama White House), boast on tape not only of disrupting Trump rallies by bought and staged violence but also of busing non-resident voters into Ohio to affect the vote count; they further brag that their dirty tricks are longstanding practice. When voting fraud is an act of pride rather than criminality, something has gone terribly wrong. Is the charge of voting subversion confined to Trump? It is now a standard Democratic talking point that Vladimir Putin is trying to rig/warp/undermine the election for Trump by turning over to WikiLeaks hacked DNC and Podesta e-mails. Hillary, at the recent Al Smith dinner, pointed to Trump’s supposed Putin connection by suggesting that Trump reads Russian. When voting fraud is an act of pride rather than criminality, something has gone terribly wrong. Yet, contrary to Hillary’s debate assertions, there is still no concrete evidence identifying the Russians as the ultimate source of the WikiLeaks, even though they may well be the most likely culprit. And even if it were true, we still don’t know whether Putin is trying to help Trump or just hurt the U.S. in general — in accordance with his serial post-reset angry behavior at Obama (sanctimonious sermons to the Russians without projecting strength is a disastrous combination and has earned the present administration Russian contempt). If Hillary Clinton were to lose the election after an especially catastrophic disclosure from WikiLeaks, we could fairly assume that her supporters — or she herself in 2002 fashion — will cry foul and claim again the election was rigged. Trump was not quite paranoid in his rants: We cannot remember a chairperson of either political party who was caught boasting to a presidential candidate’s team that she had caught electronic wind of debate questions in advance and would be willing to disclose that fact to the candidate, thus undermining the integrity of the entire debate system. In any other year, the clearly unethical conduct of Donna Brazile (“From time to time I get the questions in advance”) in undermining the debate process would have won far more media outrage than Donald Trump’s rhetorical excesses about rigged elections. Moreover, the recent disclosures substantiate the perennial right-wing paranoia that the national media are not only biased but also in direct communications with liberal candidates in efforts to warp news stories for the purposes of altering the direction of the election. To take a minor example and an even more minor character: What was disturbing about the confessions of Politico’s Glen Thrush that he was seeking pre-approval from the Clinton campaign for his supposedly disinterested reporting was not just his own confession that he had become a “hack” (“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u”), but rather his own cognizance that becoming a hack was both wrong and therefore apparently should not be disclosed: “Please don’t share or tell anyone. I did this Tell me if I f***end up anything.” The media are not worried about their lack of ethics — they’re just afraid others will glimpse that they have none. Finally, for years, readers of conservative magazines have read daily fare about voter fraud. John Fund has written an insightful book and many articles not about localized voting criminality but about stealing elections wholesale on a vast scale; he has analyzed in great detail the dangers of widely cited voter-registration and turnout abuse from Texas to Indiana. A national debate has erupted over voter IDs, with the Democratic position being that a voter should not have to show the same identification that he does when charging clothes at Target or Wal-Mart. Related: Why Do Some Election Officials Want to Hide Evidence of Non-Citizen Voting? Yet when Trump — however crudely, conspiratorially, and inexactly — takes up this theme, what do some conservatives then do? They have in the past printed dire warnings of election theft, without worrying about the concrete consequences — and now they become hysterical when someone agrees with their wolf calls in light of clear evidence of media collusion and Democratic campaign roguery? All sense of balance and perspective have vanished. Just last week, we were treated to still more media and establishment contempt for Trump’s crude and obscene hot-mic banter — but strangely just as the “sex poodle” Al Gore and the hugger of reluctant women, plagiarist, and practitioner of racist banter Joe Biden hit the campaign trail to warn us of Trump’s low-rent character and to dream of punching him out. (“No, I wish we were in high school, and I could take him behind the gym,” Biden mused about Trump. “That’s what I wish.”) Imagine a former VP Dick Cheney boasting of a desire to fist-fight the Democratic nominee, or Reince Priebus bragging in e-mails to the Trump campaign that he had prior knowledge of debate questions, or Corey Lewandowsky boasting that he had hired thugs to disrupt Hillary’s campaign rallies. Because there are no such parallels, instead we get psychodramas about a Venezuelan beauty queen. Inciting violence by the use of inflammatory language used to be something liberals publicly condemned. But now taking Trump out physically is apparently a progressive dream, as Robert De Niro (“I’d like to punch Trump in the face”) earlier had foreshadowed Biden’s dreams of physical assault. Meanwhile, liberals strain to find the right metaphor for Trump — Mussolini and Hitler being the most common — while some conservatives prefer brownshirts or Stalin. It remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication. All during this campaign, the NASCAR crowd has been lectured on the dangerous consequences of their ignorance by establishment plagiarists such as Fareed Zakaria, Maureen Dowd, and Doris Kearns Goodwin, by hollow men like John Podesta, sexual scoundrels such as Bill Clinton, and by racist slanderers like Harry Reid — with opportune finger-wagging from the ethically compromised Donna Brazile and fabulists like Brian Williams. Such shrill hypocrisy does not excuse Trump’s transgressions, but it does confirm a general picture that our intellectual and public elite play by different rules from others, and their sanctimoniousness should be ignored. It also remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication — especially given the likelihood that on illegal immigration, defense spending, Obamacare, abortion, the debt, taxes, and regulation, Trump’s published agenda is the far more conservative. Apparently a vicious, insider liberal establishmentarian poses less threat to the republic that does a more conservative outsider fop. — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Patrick Murphy, the Democrat in Florida seeking to unseat Sen. Marco Rubio in November, has flat-out denied he and his family have ever done business with Donald Trump, even though his family's construction company built two Trump-branded condominiums in the state and Murphy's father appeared alongside Trump at a groundbreaking ceremony for one of the projects.

The Communist Party wants to harness vast troves of online data to score people and companies on their behavior.

Charles Krauthammer explained how the insolvency problems in Obamacare have come from its structural problems, and that the Democrats will try to solve it with a public option and, eventually, a single-payer system: That’s the rational thing to do is not to join [Obamacare]. It was constructed from the beginning as a way to transfer money from the healthy young to the older sick. With a promise that somehow it’s not going to cost anybody anything. The young have made the right decision, the rational decision of not joining in, which makes the risk pool, the ratio of the sick to the healthy completely out of whack, which was utterly predictable and predicted. As a result, it is becoming insolvent. As a result, the majority of the states the big insurers are pulling out because it is bankrupting them. When the Democrats talk about a fix, the essence of the fix is, you pour in tax money. They’re going to have to increase the subsidies. They’re going to have to lower the level at which you receive the subsidies. This is all to make this a transition to a fully controlled, single-payer government system, which is what Obama and the others dreamed about at the beginning. Whether it was intended or not, that’s the only way to go, because it’s utterly insolvent and structurally contradictory. That’s what the Democrats are going to sell as a fix. And I don’t think anybody should buy it.

A required sociology textbook at IPFW blames poverty on capitalism and claims that American exceptionalism has “racist overtones.”

The eugenicists' favorite economic regulation

The debt crisis has driven many Puerto Ricans to Central Florida—and changed the landscape of the archetypal battleground state.

  Boston Latin School, founded in 1635, is the oldest public school in America. For more than three centuries, BLS was “a bastion for educating the sons of the Boston ‘Brahmin̵…

Is Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump setting the stages to create his own news network in the face of his cries of media corruption?

Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong? Certainly not for the liberal defenders of Obamacare.