ActRight

Four black men face assault charges in connection with the beating of a white Alabama high school student who had posted pro-police comments online, police confirmed Wednesday.

The Trump campaign called military intervention under Bill Clinton to stop genocide a “big mistake.”

MIRROR PLEASE REUPLOAD ON YOUR CHANNEL! Send a copy to NV BAR, the msm, anyone you know! There are even MORE staffers busted in different footage in this vid...

Mic.com aimed its woke firepower at Nazi Paikidze for being a “white savior” by boycotting Iran.

Huma Abedin argued in a May 2015 email that Clinton's message got lost when she took questions.

A Clinton may once again take Arizona come November.

More than $42,000 was donated to a number of political campaigns.

Team, we’re all proud of our Navy’s 241 years of history and heritage. From 1775 to today, our Navy, with our Marine Corps teammates, has protected America from attack, and preserved our influence in key regions around the world. At and from the sea, we have enhanced safety, security and stability, which has led to American prosperity. To succeed in today’s super-complex environment we must be the force that provides our national leadership with thoughtful solutions to tough problems. We must represent our Navy and our Nation with pride and professionalism. We must look to our core attributes of Integrity, Accountability, Initiative and Toughness as our guide to living by our core values. Dana and I are proud of each Sailor, civilian and family member. We are blessed to be part of the Navy team. Happy Birthday, Shipmates! - Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. (Oct. 7, 2016) The most junior Sailor in the room joins Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, Chief

As countless American families know, this vital branch of the US military has some of the most highly skilled personnel.

Looking at rules and regulations regarding the environment, computers, space, energy, and more, and determining how they affect individuals and businesses and whether they are worthwhile.

If you started reading my ?Fun with Congressional Data? posts you saw my assessment of voting changes in congress and GDP swings. Today I?m going to look at the occupations of con…

Pure politics.

Pessimists often compare today’s troubled America to a tottering late Rome or an insolvent and descending British Empire. But medieval Europe (roughly A.D. 500 to 1450) is the more apt comparison. The medieval world was a nearly 1,000-year period of spectacular, if haphazard, human achievement — along with endemic insecurity, superstition, and two, rather than three, classes. The great medieval universities — at Bologna, Paris, and Oxford — continued to make strides in science. They were not unlike the medical and engineering schools at Harvard and Stanford. But they were not centers of free thinking. Instead, medieval speech codes were designed to ensure that no one questioned the authority of church doctrine. Culturally or politically incorrect literature of the classical past, from Aristophanes to Petronius, was censored as either subversive or hurtful.  Career-wise, it was suicidal for, say, a medieval professor of science at the University of Padua to doubt the orthodoxy that the sun revolved around the earth. Similarly, at Berkeley or Princeton, few now dare to commit the heresy of expressing uncertainty about whether man-caused global warming poses an immediate, existential threat to human civilization. Today, a fifth of American households have zero or negative net worth. The shrinking middle classes struggle to service trillions of dollars in consumer and student debt to big banks — in the manner of medieval peasants. RELATED: From Greek Tragedy to American Therapy In the medieval world, impoverished serfs pledged loyalty to barons in exchange for their food and housing on the manor. In the modern world, progressive government is the bastion that distributes entitlements on the expectation that the masses show their political fealty at election time. In medieval Europe, widespread literacy disappeared. Superstition reigned in place of reason. Despite spending some $11,000 per student each year, are we all that much different? In many polls, more than a quarter of Americans believe in astrology. A quarter think aliens have visited Earth. More than 40 percent can’t name their own vice president. Nearly three-quarters of Americans have no idea what the Cold War was about. The ruling cliques of the medieval court were full of insider knaves and scoundrels, plots and intrigue. Compare the current scandals, lies, and hypocrisies of our Beltway cloister in Washington. RELATED: The Hypocrisy of the Student-Renaming Craze Closeted scholiasts wrote esoteric treatises that no one read. These works were sort of like the incomprehensible “theory” articles of university humanities professors who are up for tenure. To talk to the masses, the Latin-speaking elite spoke localized slang that would centuries later become English, French, and German — the medieval version of our electronic grunts and made-up words on Twitter and e-mail that are forming a new popular language. Medieval Europe was fragmented into local and warring fiefdoms. Tribalism trumped state unity. Medieval Europe was fragmented into local and warring fiefdoms. Tribalism trumped state unity — not unlike America’s descent into separate red-state and blue-state cultures and identity politics. With ancient borders long forgotten, medieval elites relied on massive walls, moats, and keeps to stay safe — sort of similar to what we see with the present-day gated estates of Malibu and Silicon Valley. Today’s zillionaire lords drive BMWs and fly in private jets instead of riding huge warhorses. They may wear jeans and flip-flops in place of robes and crowns, but their wealth and influence are as unlimited as the splendor of the lords of the medieval manor. RELATED: Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg apparently does not assume that state law enforcement can guarantee the security of his estate. Instead, he has his own security personnel to keep out bounders — and buys up all the houses around his own in a postmodern effort to form a sort of premodern moat. The great architects of the late Middle Ages could design majestic cathedrals at places such as Chartres and Rouen. But debt, incompetence, and quarreling meant that their construction — unlike the earlier construction of the Parthenon — took centuries to complete. The blueprints and mock-ups for California high-speed rail are as grandiose as the plans of medieval Gothic churches. But the reality of ever completing the project will require a half-century of cost overruns, lawsuits, and continual higher fees and taxes. For their roads and water, isolated medieval fiefdoms relied on the crumbling ancient infrastructure of long-gone Rome. RELATED: America’s Balkan Values In 21st-century America, we rely on — but could never again build — structures such as the Hoover Dam. It’s inconceivable that we could build, for instance, a new eight-lane, interstate super freeway system from coast to coast. Medieval mass entertainment — puppeteering, mimes, jugglers, acrobats — was far different than the sort of entertainment that troubadours and bards performed for the lords. In our age, think of the gulf between the symphony and reality TV, quiz shows, and the NFL. There is one great difference, however, between the medieval and modern worlds. People living in medieval times believed in transcendence and a soul, and sought to keep alive culture until civilization returned. People living in modern times increasingly live for their appetites without worry about what follows — with little awareness of what has been lost and so not a clue about how to recapture it. — Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals. You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected]. © 2016 Tribune Media Services, Inc.​​

There are many theories for Trump’s rise, but the simplest is the truest. Celebrity populism combined with media support helped him win a divided field. He started from a base of around 20 percent, a number similar to past fringe candidates. He was then lifted to front-runner status with his media advantage. Unlike previous front-runners, he never came under attack in a way that would have exposed his vulnerabilities, as is happening right now. The failure was in not taking him down before the primaries started and in failing to unite behind an alternative front-runner. Had the party united to defeat Trump, he could have been defeated. But each candidate focused on his own interests and hoped to be the last person standing. The assumption, which turned out to be wrong, was that Trump could not defeat a candidate face to face and would be doomed once the field narrowed. Writing in the Investor’s Business Daily, Stephen Moore compared this to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” a concept drawn from game theory. The prisoner’s dilemma is usually described as follows. Two prisoners are facing medium sentences, let’s say five years each. Each can turn evidence for additional crimes that will give the other a longer sentence, say, ten years. The prisoner who turns evidence will be rewarded with a three-year reduction in his sentence. What each prisoner realizes is that regardless of what the other does, it’s worth it to snitch. If the other keeps quiet, snitching will reduce your sentence from five years to two. And if the other does snitch, you can reduce your sentence from ten years to seven. Since each prisoner acts in his own self-interest, they will both turn evidence, and both will end up with seven-year sentence; whereas if both had kept silent, both would be better off. However, if the two have a way to communicate or if they have a code of conduct that they trust, they can break the pattern. When the Cruz and Kasich campaigns coordinated late in the primary process, Marketplace described it as an example of repeat playing, in which the players start to understand that it’s in their best interest to cooperate. Ideally, members of a political party should have an overriding shared interest in ensuring that their party wins. Barring that, they should at least take their own interests to heart. After all, they are not playing blind; there are channels of communications that allow the players to make deals. So why couldn’t they communicate earlier on for a better result? The answer is that the prisoner’s dilemma is not really an accurate comparison. In the prisoner’s dilemma, working together benefits not only the whole but also each individual. In 2016, the Republican party as a whole lost, but it’s a more complicated situation for the individual candidates. Many of the candidates did in fact choose the winning strategy for themselves. It’s easy to see how Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker would have personally benefited from a Republican victory. As experienced governors, they were in prime positions for cabinet posts. But here’s the thing: All three of these did in fact attack Trump, and they were the first to drop out. They all acted as collaborators should. The dynamic between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio is unique. If I were advising Bush, I’d have told him to drop out in the fall of 2015 and support Rubio. This would probably have resulted in a Rubio nomination, and today Jeb would have his pick of cabinet positions. In my book, he played it wrong and lost. But what if his priorities aren’t mine? As a man who had family in the White House for twelve years, a lesser office, even that of secretary of state, might not have been enticing. What if, for personal reasons, he preferred sinking Rubio over serving in Rubio’s cabinet? If that’s the case, in his book he’s a winner: Rubio isn’t president. Rubio himself chose to generally avoid Trump in the first part of the primary season. This strategy obviously didn’t hurt Trump at all. While Rubio individually didn’t have the resources to take down Trump, if the 16 other candidates had all worked against Trump, it could have had a cumulative effect. Had Trump been taken down in the early primary season, Rubio probably would have been the nominee, so it made little sense for him to drop out or go on a kamikaze attack against Trump. I don’t know whether Rubio won or lost from a game-theory perspective, but perhaps he thought that eventually the party would support him, a questionable assumption. Chris Christie’s direct hit at Rubio badly damaged the Florida senator but didn’t help Christie in the primary. This makes sense in retrospect, though. He simply joined the Trump train. He took the chance that Trump would win because, as damaged goods himself, he knew that it was his only chance for a cabinet post. The primaries are set up in such a way that a candidate can ‘win’ just by running. This proved disastrous to the party as a whole. Ted Cruz wrapped himself in Trump’s cloak early in the primary and praised the man, in the hope of picking up his supporters when Trump inevitably failed. Had he not embraced Trump, he would be in about the same place as Rand Paul: invisible. Cruz was never going to pull it off. He did as best as a man of his limited political skills could do and won the same respectable second place that Rick Santorum achieved in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008. He played the game to a win, from his perspective. (Of course, being Ted Cruz, he blew it all by denouncing Trump in the most damaging way and then endorsing him at the worst possible time.) But the real problem is the profile-builders. Probably half the field qualifies as such. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasich, for instance, might not have had the stature or reputation that would qualify them for automatic appointments. They needed to run to achieve that. By getting on the debate stage and, in Kasich’s case, lasting till he was among the final three, they raised their profiles. Then there’s the whole slew of retired and out-of-date politicians who wanted one more chance at glory. There’s plenty of perks to being a failed candidate. There’s always the next cycle. There are books deals, TV shows, or just good old-fashioned fame. Just getting on TV on the debate stage is enough for some egos. By lasting as long as they could, each of these candidates did win, in some degree. By dropping out early for the greater good, they would have personally lost. So we see that each of these candidate did employ the best strategy, considering the final results. The primaries are set up in such a way that a candidate can “win” just by running. This proved disastrous to the party as a whole because it created an extremely divided field. I’m not sure what game this is, but it’s not the prisoner’s dilemma. If it doesn’t have a name, we can call it the “politicians dilemma.”  #related#One necessary fix is limiting the debates so that there’s less incentive to run just to get on TV. The GOP could either restrict who gets in the debates or could hold off on holding any debates until just a few weeks before the primary vote is held. And there should not be any “undercard” debates. Some might complain that this will make it hard for lesser-known candidates to raise their profile, but this is the objective. The election should not be about raising candidates’ profiles. We could also follow the example of Britain’s Conservative party. Members of parliament narrow down the selection to the top two, who then face all the party members (the portion of the general public that has self-identified as Conservative). Modifying this somewhat would allow governors, senators, and representatives to narrow down the candidates to the top three or four who could then compete in the primaries. Alternatively, we could simply require a minimum number of endorsements, which would limit the field. This might even bar the next Trump from running in the first place. — Jay Cobb is the founder, publisher, and editor in chief of the group blog The Buckley Club.

On Wednesday’s The View two of the most liberal hosts, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, came up with their own completely original and unheard of reason as for why Donald Trump had so many supporters: Because a lot of Americans are racist. Whoopi made the point, to which Behar agreed, before making the claim that Trump supporters hated Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman, as well. This kind of genius analysis from liberals isn’t, unfortunately, limited to the panelists at The View.

Secular writings 'fueled hostility and anger' toward Atlanta couple that led to 2015 machete assassination.

What a man! What a message! Super Bowl champion Burgess Owens has a message about the Democratic Party. He's not holding back! He talked to Stuart Varney about the history of the Democratic and Republican parties. And the heart of each party. He concluded with a request. Watch via Facebook: From...

Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump cannot seem to move past his history of potentially egregious behavior with women.

"There’s a big Trump and a little Trump. The little Trump is frankly pathetic."

“Investing isn’t complicated. You just buy stocks when they sell for less than they’re worth.”“How do you know what they’re worth?”“That’s complicated.”Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. I’ve learned the latter part the hard way, realizing that it’s often hard to tell the difference between two simple but opposite views.For example …It’s hard to know the difference between “I was wrong” and “The odds were in my favor but it just didn’t work out.” You can’t learn from a mistake unless you can accurate identify a mistake. But doing so is easier said than done. An investment that soured could have been a mistake, or it could have had a 90% chance of success with great return prospects, but unfortunately stumbled upon the 10% chance of things going wrong. The problem is we rarely know the exact odds of success of our decisions; we can only make educated guesses, and those guesses are influenced by how we want the event to turn out. This creates two challenges: Sometimes we make terrible bets and think we just got unlucky, and sometimes we make excellent bets whose unfortunate outcomes discourage us from pursuing them again.It’s hard to know the difference between “Be patient” and “Change your mind when the facts change.” All worthwhile investments are cyclical, so capturing long-term returns requires patience through difficult times. Then again: Ninety-six percent of companies go out of business within 10 years, and even about 40% of established public companies at some point lose most of their value and never recover. Blindly saying “Be patient” isn’t safe in a world where most stuff eventually breaks for good. You should change your mind when the facts change. But by the time we can tell whether something is a changed fact or just a cyclical downturn, it’s often too late. The same people who are lauded for holding firm on Amazon during its dark days could be criticized for being patient with General Motors during its fall. The solution is diversification and an acceptance of some degree of loss, but along the way you’ll constantly question whether you’re dealing with a normal cycle or the beginning of the end.It’s hard to know the difference between contrarian and cynical. Getting ahead can mean doing things different than the masses. But the masses aren’t always wrong. They’re often right. The idea that you should always bet against what’s popular is not contrarianism; it’s cynicism. The trick is realizing the rate occasion when the masses delude themselves into believing something that isn’t true. This is easier said than done, because for every unsustainable bubble there are at least ten instances of things legitimately being different this time. I suspect many people, in an attempt to become wisely contrarian, accidentally stumble into cynicism. And that’s often more dangerous than going along with the crowd.It’s hard to know the difference between your viewpoint and the complete viewpoint. Someone once described Donald Trump’s personality as, “Unable to distinguish between what happened and what he thinks should have happened.” I think all of us suffer from this to some degree. Everyone needs to tell themselves a story about how the world works, and the path of least resistance is to tell yourself a simple, logical story based on what you’ve personally experienced in life. But since all of us have only seen a tiny fraction of the world, we fill in the gaps of what’s unfamiliar with what we know. “The recession occurred because [this specific thing I’m familiar with].” “The company failed because [this specific interaction I had].” Trying to accurately explain 100% of something you’ve only experienced 0.0001% of is as difficult as it is prevalent.It’s hard to know the difference between incentives and motivations. Here’s the simple difference: Mark Zuckerberg in the early days of Facebook was motivated. The Wells Fargo employees who opened fake accounts to meet their targets were incentivized. Both worked on a system of, “If I do X, I’ll be rewarded with Y.” But one wanted to earn the reward – it was like an emotional mission for a cause larger than himself – while the other only wanted (or needed) to get the reward. Without hindsight it can be hard to tell which is which.It’s hard to know the difference between data and data mining. I want my decisions to be driven by data, not my gut. But if my gut can’t logically explain why the data says what it does, maybe the data is wrong, incomplete, biased, or I’ve found a spurious correlation. Following data without asking, “Is this really true? Am I missing something” is dangerous. But once you let yourself start questioning data, you open up the door to seeing what you want to see and explaining things how you want them explained. This is why equally smart people can look at the same data and persuasively draw opposite conclusions. And it’s why we have more data than ever before but are still highly susceptible to making terrible decisions.

The death is almost certain to add to pressure on the state and federal authorities to improve coordination among the patchwork of agencies responsible for law enforcement.

Conservatives hoping Trump will be better than Hillary on SCOTUS are fooling themselves.

The singer and songwriter was recognized for “new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.”

As liberal CNN commentators Bakari Sellers and Maria Cardona appeared as panel members on Tuesday's CNN Tonight to react to a report by CNN's Tom Foreman mostly recalling sexual assault victims who have made complaints about abuse by Bill and Hillary Clinton, both denied that Hillary had been caught laughing about successfully defending a child rapist in spite of the existence of an audio recording of just that. And, in spite of the fact that Foreman's report dealt mostly with sexual assault victims, Sellers feebly began by trying to use the standard liberal argument that Hillary Clinton had the right to be angry at women who had "cheated" with her husband. Conservative CNN political commentator Kayleigh McEnany had to job of taking them both on with little assistance from other panel members, with Sellers and Cardona calling some of the charges against Hillary "not true" and "a lie."