ActRight

The President of the United States went on for nearly six minutes (he was clearly prepped to do so) in response to a question about GOP presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Mr. Obama declared Trump “UNFIT” to be president, took Trump comments out of context and then wrapped them around Obama’s own view of how the …

Donald Trump shattered the previous GOP primary record by 1.4 million votes this year — and that was with 17 ...

NEW YORK – A few Americans were shocked at the photos of a naked Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s wife, on the front page of the NY Post yesterday. Thankfully, the paper has promised ALL Americans that they will not be subjected to having to see naked pictures of Bill Clinton’s wife. In that regard, America

John Podesta sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund,.

The man running on the platform of "Make America Great Again" agreed with Russian leader/thug Vladimir Putin when he penned an op-ed bashing President Obama for using the term "American exceptionalism." In 2013, during an appearance with Piers Morgan, Trump said Putin "really put it" to Obama over his use of the term. Here is the video of Trump speaking with Morgan: Trending CNN Will | Read More »

The Democratic National Committee’s CEO and two other top officials have resigned in the wake of the leaked email controversy that marred the start of the party’s convention last week – in the latest shake-up at party headquarters.

Three senior officials with the Democratic National Committee have resigned, the DNC said on Tuesday, amid a shake-up following a hack of thousands of emails that embarrassed the party just as it staged its national convention last week.

Between 2004 and 2014, the government-run health agency spent more than $20 million on luxury art.

"How can you support a current administration that diminishes your son’s death by denying he had an enemy?"

My #NeverTrump colleagues and friends make valid points about Donald Trump. I know -- I made them myself during the Republican primaries.

“…a moment of annihilation…”

The U.S. secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly blew up at George Will on Friday night calling him a "hack."

McCain and Pence will meet, even as Trump refuses to endorse the Arizona senator.

You’ve seen the word “globalist” popping up around Trump fan sites all over the internet. It seems like some sort of slur, but you’re not sure what it means. Good news: you’re not the only one. Many of the people using the word “globalist” seem to be under the misimpression that opposing “globalism” involves reviving American authority, rejecting international institutions that remove American sovereignty. That’s not what Trump fans mean by “globalism.”

The extraordinary breach of political decorum came two weeks after a convention designed to showcase party unity.

Donald Trump’s public feud with the Khan family has drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats alike. There’s always been a staunch bipartisan consensus, or better yet unspoken code of honor, against throwing verbal daggers at the families of decorated war veterans. In more ways than one, Trump is an anomaly. On Monday, the Republican presidential nominee continued his uninterrupted vitriol against the Khans in an interview with a local Ohio television station.

"It’s time to move on from this charade..."

Frightened families in Melbourne's west have resorted to fortifying their homes against violent thieves less than a month after many residents started to arm themselves with bats.

An LAPD cop, falsely accused of racism and brutality, is being attacked an L.A. City agency for exposing the truth and defending himself, and now the City…

For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books. Two new books jumped to the front of the all-important hardcover nonfiction list just this week: Armageddon, by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, and Hillary's America, by Dinesh D'Souza.

Following the receipt of a critical letter, NBC News has quietly edited the Internet edition of a segment that aired on the highly-rated “Today Show” in which anchor Andrea Mitchell claimed Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton had been “discredited.”

Ten libertarian and conservative legal experts weigh in. The answers may surprise you.

What is the campaign strategy for the two political parties? Clues can be had from the responses to a question I asked about a dozen dignitaries of each party at their conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia. What’s your best guess, I asked, emphasizing guess, of your nominee’s percentage of the popular vote in November 2016? I understood the responses, being on the record, were not entirely frank. Only two Republicans guessed Donald Trump would lose; only one Democrat said he was uncertain about the result. It would be churlish to hurl the responses of those who turned out to be less than prescient back at them in scorn. One thing the responses had in common is that they reflected pre-convention polling, which showed Hillary Clinton 3 to 5 points ahead. Democrats did not seem to be taking into account post-Republican Convention polling that showed the race essentially even. But otherwise they differed. Only two Republicans guessed that Trump would get more than 50 percent of the vote. Several made a point of saying that minor party candidates — Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Jill Stein — would get a significant number of votes. Most Democrats did not take this prospect very seriously. Only two guessed that Clinton’s percentage would be under 49 percent. Most thought it would be 52 percent or higher — more than Barack Obama’s 51 percent in 2012. Acting national chairman Donna Brazile guessed that Clinton would win 303 electoral votes, which she would if she carried every Obama 2012 state except Florida. It may be natural for Republicans to consider more permutations and combinations than Democrats. Republicans have just been through a primary cycle in which conventional wisdom has been disrupted over and over. Democrats’ result was the one they expected all along. As is the result they seem to expect in November. They’ve internalized the analyses that claim that demographic change — increasing percentages of nonwhites, Millennials, single women in the electorate — have propelled them to something like permanent majority status. They understand that Donald Trump is running stronger than previous Republican nominees among non-college-educated white men, and their speakers made ritual obeisance to the meme that Democrats are better for the little guy. But the more prevalent appeal, delivered especially by Michael Bloomberg, is to whites with higher education who are already repelled by Trump. This amounts to augmenting their initial strategy of re-assembling the 2012 Obama 51 percent majority with what FiveThirtyEight proprietor Nate Silver calls a “1964 strategy,” arguing that the Republican nominee is unacceptable. The numbers look like they might add up — or not. But there are some imponderables. One is that the incumbent party is at a disadvantage when two-thirds of voters believe things are moving in the wrong direction. The Clinton convention was forced to claim that things are better than you think and even to take on the trappings of optimistic nationalism and, at some risk of boos from Bernie bros, add flags and generals in its third and fourth days. That risks being at odds with the middle of the electorate and its own left wing at the same time. The second is that the candidate promises economic growth with policies that have over the last seven years produced only sluggish growth — more sluggish than economists thought, it turns out, from GDP statistics released July 29. The 16 references to “growth” in the Bernie Sanders–influenced party platform refer mostly to policies helping one or more of the party’s favored splinter groups. There’s also a claim that higher taxes will stimulate growth and a promise of more infrastructure spending. But as Barack Obama grinningly observed, there are no shovel-ready projects. And if you want someone who will sweep aside environmental barriers and regulatory delays, you might well prefer Donald Trump. The third imponderable is something pollsters can’t reliably gauge: turnout. Even with Obama’s endorsement, Clinton is unlikely to equal the black turnout and Democratic percentages of 2008 and 2012. Hispanics have shown less enthusiasm for repudiating Trump than Democrats expected. Young voters, who dislike Trump but voted heavily for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, may be hard to rally. Polling shows many under-35s who choose Clinton in a two-way race prefer Libertarian Gary Johnson or the Green party’s Jill Stein when given the option. That could swell the minor-party vote above the 1.0 to 1.8 percent they received in the last three elections. So which party has a winning strategy? Not clear. — Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. © 2016 The Washington Examiner. Distributed by Creators.com.

Dozens of Republican primaries in recent years have pitted a conservative challenger against an establishment incumbent. But voters in Kansas’s first district tonight are witnessing a role reversal: The fire-breathing conservative-style candidate is not the challenger but the incumbent.  Representative Tim Huelskamp, a prominent member of the House Freedom Caucus, could lose his seat Tuesday in what has been a nail-biter of a primary to Roger Marshall, an obstetrician who has won the backing of a number of agricultural and business interests as well as outside groups looking to oust Huelskamp. It is a race that is hyper-focused on local issues, but that has also drawn national attention thanks to the millions of dollars it has sucked in from outside groups in what some see as the first major proxy battle between the Freedom Caucus and House speaker Paul Ryan. “It’s about insiders versus an outsider,” says Huelskamp in a Monday evening phone interview. “It’s about the Washington, D.C., establishment out after conservatives.” But it’s not that simple. The Kansas race has scrambled many of the normal alliances on the right: Ted Cruz has endorsed Huelskamp, even as the firm owned by his own campaign manager, Jeff Roe, works against the congressman. The Club for Growth, another Huelskamp backer, spent much of the primary season working arm in arm against Donald Trump with the megadonors Joe and Todd Ricketts; in Kansas the Club and the Ricketts are on opposite sides, with the Club working on Huelskamp’s behalf and the ESAFund, a super PAC funded by the Ricketts, working against him. How did this happen?    The seeds of this primary were sown in 2012 and 2013, when former House speaker John Boehner retaliated against Huelskamp for thwarting House leadership by tossing him from the Agriculture Committee. The loss of that post, a key one for Huelskamp’s district, which spans rural Kansas, has been a major flashpoint in this campaign. A number of major agricultural groups deserted Huelskamp this year because he lost the seat, and now each candidate insists he is more likely than the other to win a spot on the committee next year.     “I think I’ve got the votes to get back on the Agriculture Committee,” Huelskamp says. Politico reported in July that Huelskamp asked Speaker Ryan to make a public promise to put him back on the committee, but Ryan has declined to do anything to tip the scales in this race. In a statement provided to National Review, the Speaker was non-committal: “When I became Speaker, I told all of our members that we are starting fresh with a clean slate. And I’ve long thought Kansas should be represented on the House Committee on Agriculture. Tim Huelskamp has the kind of background that could serve the state well on the Ag Committee. These kinds of assignments ultimately will be decided by the Republican steering committee at the end of the year.” But the result is that some Kansans are skeptical that Huelskamp will ever regain the post. “I think that the fact that the Speaker hasn’t come out and said ‘I’m willing to put Tim back on the committee’ speaks volumes,” says Aaron Popelka, vice president of legal and government affairs of the Kansas Livestock Association. The loss of the seat has also been used to highlight what many characterize as Huelskamp’s personal prickliness, a difficulty working with his colleagues that some fault for his loss of the precious committee seat. “Tim has just kind of put himself in a position where he’s become irrelevant in Washington. He can’t seem to work with others whether in his party or out,” says Warren Parker, policy communications director for the Kansas Farm Bureau, which endorsed Marshall last month. Representatives and volunteers for the Kansas Livestock Association have been “disappointed” with their yearly meetings with Huelskamp in D.C., says Popelka. “Most of the conversation was about the process and how bad the leadership was treating him. And our guys’ issues they felt like just weren’t landing,” he says. Having lost his spot on the Agriculture Committee, Popelka says, Huelskamp wasn’t in a position to “advance those concerns” anyway. Huelskamp, for his part, shrugs his shoulders at the opposition he has evoked from such groups. “They’re part of this race, but they’re a very small part of the $2 million against me.” #share#Huelskamp and his allies say the race is John Boehner’s payback for the years Huelskamp spent working to thwart his agenda. “I think that if you could dust the campaign you’d see John Boehner’s fingerprints on it,” says Iowa representative Steve King, who stumped with Huelskamp last week. Huelskamp too describes the challenge as the “revenge” of the former House leadership. He alleges that some of the funding for his opponent comes from “Eric Cantor’s friends on Wall Street.” Boehner and Cantor are no longer in office, but Huelskamp attacks House leadership in a way that suggests he sees little difference between the new regime and the old. Leadership, Huelskamp says, without mentioning anyone in leadership by name, pledges to “stand with incumbents and that’s not been the case.” A Ryan aide disputes that characterization. “We support all our incumbents, including Tim Huelskamp,” the aide says. Ousting Huelskamp would illustrate that the threat of a primary challenge goes both ways; that it’s not just establishment-style Republicans who can be punished. But while Ryan is not taking any steps against dissenters within his conference, outside groups have shown no such qualms. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the ESAFund (formerly Ending Spending) have both spent against Huelskamp in Kansas. ESAFund president Brian Baker says this is about Huelskamp specifically, saying he “cares more about special-interest scorecards and large corporate lobbyists than the people who elected [him].” But ousting Huelskamp would illustrate that the threat of a primary challenge goes both ways; that it’s not just establishment-style Republicans who can be punished by their own party at the ballot box. The resulting message if Huelskamp were to lose, says former Virginia representative and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Davis, is that for members who vote against the Speaker, “there’s a price for that. They used to do this with impunity,” he says. Others say that the simplest explanation for Huelskamp’s troubles is that many people, quite simply, do not like him. Parker, of the Kansas Farm Bureau, notes that it’s not Freedom Caucus members writ large who lost their committee spots. “There are other members — very conservative members of the Freedom Caucus and others — that aren’t getting tossed off of two committees,” he says. “And so he’s just put himself into this position that people just look at him as someone they cannot work with, committee members do not want him on the committees, and he’s just made himself irrelevant.” #related#Representative Lynn Westmoreland, a member of the Steering Committee until January, says the committee declined Boehner’s request in 2015 to put Huelskamp back on the Agriculture Committee. “It was the only time I really saw the Speaker really not get what he wanted,” Westmoreland says. Tom Willis, an agribusinessman who has been involved in the efforts to oust Huelskamp both this year and in 2014 and appears in an ESAFund ad, says the congressman is prickly not just with other members of Congress. Willis says that Huelskamp threatened retaliation against him at a town hall in 2014 after he backed Huelskamp’s primary challenger that year. “I’m a Ronald Reagan guy. Personally, I never speak ill of another Republican,” says Willis. “But this is an exception.” — Alexis Levinson is National Review’s senior political reporter.