ActRight

Bingo.

A good place to start in determining how to enforce the Constitution is with the guy who’s commonly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”

ChristianMingle.com, an online platform for single Christians seeking relationships, must accommodate gay users, a California judge ruled. Two gay men in California brought a lawsuit against Chris

"Sorry, Mr Williams..."

SIGN THE PETITION! Demand that feminist activists fight for Muslim women! https://goo.gl/MmS1kq Are women oppressed in Muslim countries? What about in Islami...

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his fellow greenies are getting a lesson about the dangers of believing their own propaganda. These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on clima…

The NRA National Firearms Museum houses the famous firearms the founding fathers and heroic warriors used to earn and defend American freedom.

I have an idea. The federal government needs to compile a list of women who shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. The criteria for getting on the list must be flexible. If an official at, say, the NIH or FBI think that a woman should be a mother for some reason or other, he or she can block an abortion. Maybe the woman has great genes or a high IQ or the sorts of financial resources we need in parents. Let’s leave that decision where it belongs: in the hands of the government. #ad#Heck, there’s really no reason even to tell women if they’re on the “no abort” list. Let them find out at the clinic. And if they go in for an abortion only to discover they are among the million or more people on the list, there will be no clear process for getting off it, even if it was a bureaucratic error or case of mistaken identity. Sound like a good idea? You probably don’t think so, particularly if you took part in the celebratory riot of good feeling in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down Texas abortion regulations. In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the court ruled that Texas could not raise the required health and safety standards of abortion clinics to match those of other “ambulatory surgical centers.” The reforms were implemented in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal, in which the Philadelphia abortionist’s abattoir was revealed to be more like the setting for a Saw& movie than a decent medical clinic. RELATED: The Imaginarium of Harry Blackmun The court held that abortion is such a fundamental constitutional right that minimal health standards are an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, even if they might save women’s lives. There’s a deep and perplexing contradiction here. If abortion is just another aspect of “women’s health” — currently the preferred euphemism for the procedure — why have higher health and safety regulations for dentists than abortionists? But that’s just the first of many contradictions. The court allowed Whole Woman’s Health to sue in the first place, even though the company has no right to an abortion, and third parties aren’t supposed to have standing to sue for someone else’s constitutional rights. The Left loves to say “corporations aren’t people” — unless they’re suing for abortion rights. Then the new mantra is: “Corporations are people, but human fetuses aren’t.” RELATED: The Left Has a Religion — the Supreme Court Just Proved It  The contradiction I find most glaring and galling is that the euphoric hysteria from the left over the court’s decision occurred right in the middle of a conversation about guns and terrorist watch lists. In that conversation, many of the same voices on the left argued that the federal government can — nay, must! — have the unilateral power to put American citizens on a secret list barring them from exercising two constitutional rights: the right to bear arms and the right to due process when the government denies you a right. (Both, unlike abortion, are rights spelled out in the Constitution.) Congressional Democrats even staged a tawdry tantrum on the House floor about it. Never mind that the Orlando slaughter — the event that set off the House sit-in — would not have been prevented if the Democrats had their way. EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court’s Undue Burden on State Abortion Laws Writing for the majority in the Hellerstedt case, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Texas statute was unnecessary because “determined wrongdoers” like Gosnell wouldn’t be deterred by new laws given that he was willing to violate existing laws. Maybe so. But isn’t that exactly the NRA’s position on gun laws? Murderers, never mind terrorists, by definition don’t care about the law. #related#It gets even crazier. President Obama, who hailed the court’s decision, desperately craves the unilateral power to keep a list of people to whom he wants to deny guns without due process. But he also insists that known terrorists, particularly those held at Guantanamo Bay, have a constitutional right to due process (though presumably not to buy a gun). Yes, there’s a lot of deviltry in the details, but the basic truth is undeniable: Those on the left — in all three branches of the federal government, along with their cheerleaders in the media — believe that the rights they like are sacred and the rights they dislike are negligible inconveniences at best and outrageous cancers on the body politic at worst. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in his Hellerstedt dissent: “The Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors.” In this, the court is not alone. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. You can write to him by e-mail at [email protected]. © 2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

In the latest sign that the judiciary has gone completely off the rails, a judge has now forced the owners of ChristianMingle.com, Spark, to include same-sex matches on their website. Two gay men decided that there simply weren’t enough gay dating websites on the internet, and sued ChristianMingle.com in 2013.

The Star-Spangled Banner survived the rocket’s red glare and bombs bursting in air – only to face a modern-day threat – silly town ordinances and petty bureaucrats.

"She has no right..."

French police opened an investigation on Friday after a director at the Restos du Coeur charity said he had been stabbed earlier in the day by a couple shouting "Allahu Akbar," the Paris prosecutor's office said.

Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES As the GOP struggles to find people to speak at the party convention, Trump seeks to fill all the speaking slots with sycophants and hangers-on, who will, presumably, lavish him with the unwavering adulation he deserves. So far, Trump has reached out to B-list celebrities and sports stars. The goal is to make this like an episode of “The | Read More

In the latest sign that the judiciary has gone completely off the rails, a judge has now forced the owners of ChristianMingle.com, Spark, to include same-sex matches on their website. Two gay men decided that there simply weren’t enough gay dating websites on the internet, and sued ChristianMingle.com in 2013.

With an investigation into the use of emails under Hillary Clinton ongoing, Bill and Lynch meet privately on Monday VIDEO

The tidal wave of refugees that crashed through Germany’s doors last year has long turned to a trickle, but the costs of the inflow will remain a burden on the country for years, budget figures showed.

Once again, the mainstream media is shocked and chagrined over the staying power of Donald Trump. Last week, various news outlets touted two national polls appearing to show the presidential race

Two things: First, it is impossible for a mentally and emotionally normal adult to support Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency without calling into question his judgment or his honor. Second, it is easier to forgive defective judgment than deficient honor. Trump is out whining like the spoiled little princess he is and always has been that his fellow Republican presidential contenders, having been vanquished, are not making good on their promise to support the GOP nominee, presumably himself. Trump is of course absolutely correct that Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, et al. did make that promise, and that to withhold their support now would constitute violating a solemn promise made in public to their supporters. Breaking that promise is absolutely the right thing to do. #ad#We allow for a certain amount of cynical calculation in politicians — politics ain’t beanbag, as Dooley says. It may be that Senator Cruz and Governor Kasich made that primary-debate promise to support the eventual nominee in the hope — in the idiotic, forlorn hope — that the Republican primary electorate would not be so backward and malevolent as to choose an imbecilic game-show host to the left of Hillary Rodham Clinton on most of the relevant issues of our time over a slew of solid and impressive if imperfect conservatives. I can see Ted Cruz reenacting the final scene of Planet of the Apes: “You maniacs! You did it!” Of course he didn’t think that Sean Hannity’s tangerine dream would become America’s Creamsicle nightmare, but here we are. It would be perfectly defensible — and honorable — for Ted Cruz to say: “I made that promise thinking that the chances were remote that Donald Trump would become the nominee, and without fully appreciating what manner of man he was, which really began to dawn on me around the time he suggested my father was somehow mixed up in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and putting out explicitly racist theories about how Mexican-American judges can’t fairly preside over cases involving fraud allegations against Trump. I shouldn’t have made that promise, and I regret having done so, but there is no way in hell that I am supporting Trump. I care too much about the future of my country and my immortal soul to climb into that particular snake-pit just to avoid the appearance of having made a mistake in judgment, which I clearly did.” RELATED: What Would Need to Happen for Trump to Lose in Cleveland? Of course, Senator Cruz et al. should have known well before the grassy-knoll and eek-a-Mexican-judge stuff that Donald Trump is unfit for the office of the presidency. And that is what he is: morally, intellectually, and politically unfit for office. Is Hillary Rodham Clinton actually Satan in the flesh? Of course Hillary Rodham Clinton is actually Satan in the flesh; Donald Trump is still unfit for office. It isn’t Ted Cruz’s fault, or John Kasich’s, or Marco Rubio’s, or Jeb Bush’s, that the American public in free and fair elections chose two major-party candidates whose preening self-regard, dishonesty, moral cowardice, and incompetence is in each candidate’s case the best and only argument for the other candidate. Well done, America. #share#Cruz and the rest should not be bullied into accepting the nonsense that refusing to go in for Trump is a vote for Mrs. Clinton. It isn’t. Declining to support Trump is an act of integrity and good taste. It isn’t anything Cruz or Bush has done that makes Trump unsupportable — that is Trump’s doing, and no one else’s. If there is a revolt in Cleveland — as there should be — it will be entirely understandable, and justifiable. If the delegates end up playing fast and loose with the nomination rules, it may be that the Republican party needs some new ones — the Democratic party and its undemocratic “superdelegate” system sure is looking smart right about now: They didn’t need McGovern to tell them twice. #related#Trump will demand public displays of fealty, and so will his partisans on talk radio and cable news and elsewhere. There will be a whole coyote pack’s worth of barking at the moon if the holdouts hold out, but they should. A great many people have taken a step back from the Republican party this year, and in recent years, and I can tell you that at least one of them isn’t going to come back if the GOP decides that Trumpism is what it stands for. I don’t think I’m the only one. I spent yesterday evening with a group of young Republicans in Texas — Texas, friends — who are committed activists, donors, door-knockers, future office-seekers, etc., who are suddenly not sure that they belong in the party where they have spent their entire political lives. I don’t think there’s much keeping them on Team Pachyderm except the lack of a viable option. If the Libertarian party had put up a Weld-Johnson ticket instead of the other way around, some of them surely would have bolted. Some of them will, anyway. The Republicans who promised to support the nominee no matter who made an error in judgment. That’s forgivable. But now it is time to admit the error, step up, and do the right thing. In this case, that means taking a page from the Reagan playbook, meaning the Nancy Reagan playbook: Just say, “No.” Hell, no. – Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

David French is right. Evangelicals and other social conservatives need to get serious about political engagement or we will lose our right to associate, organize, and keep our jobs while speaking Christian views on sex and marriage in America. French points to the tepid reaction – or, rather, non-reaction – to the California bill that basically redefines religious freedom in education to apply only to seminaries. Christian colleges must conform to California’s new secular religion of equality or be shut down. #ad#There was an even more important story this week, actually, that got no attention. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which decided two years ago that the iconic 1964 Civil Rights Act also barred discrimination against LGBT individuals, won its first case. It wasn’t really a controversy since the defendant, Pallet Companies, wanted to cave: “Rather than litigate with the EEOC, we looked at ways we could enhance our pre-existing commitment to a productive and discrimination-free workplace.” To settle the lawsuit, Pallet Companies will pay $182,200 to the employee who was the plaintiff and donate $20,000 to the workplace-equality program of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. With remarkably little fuss or attention from Republicans or the Right, the Obama administration has redefined all gender-discrimination provisions throughout federal law to now include LGBT individuals, thereby obviating the need to negotiate with Congress for religious-liberty protections as the price of passing new provisions related to gay people. Democrat-dominated regulatory bodies are now seeking out test cases built on terms that encourage the parties sued to settle rather than contest the claim, thereby building a network of legal precedents for taking to the next step: getting federal courts and the Supreme Court to confirm. This is the new context that makes the recent meeting between Trump and Evangelical leaders so significant. By and large, Evangelicals emerged saying nice things about Trump. The pro-life movement (which is the only part of social conservatism to build political organizations that get involved in electoral politics directly) got the most: an explicit promise to appoint pro-life judges. On the truly great and new threat to religious liberty – this plot, unfolding in plain view, to treat Christian view on sex and marriage as the legal equivalent of gender or racial bigotry – what did Trump have to say? I wasn’t there. Don Wildmon was: “I don’t think he understands the religious-freedom issue as it relates to the LGBT movement and Christians,” Wildmon said. Trump was asked point-blank about that by Kelly Shackelford. We all know the stories about the Christian businesses that have been either put out of business or fined . . . by the LGBT people who want to force them to participate in gay marriages or “[gay] weddings.” He did say he is for religious freedom, but I don’t think he really understands that issue. Either he doesn’t understand it or he doesn’t agree with us and he doesn’t want to tell us that. I think that’s his weakness. From reading the transcript, I think it is very clear that Trump does understand the question and that he chooses to dodge and distract rather than answer it. #share#For one thing, the questions were submitted in advance. Trump’s responses were scripted, not off the cuff. So he knew what the question was, had time to prepare, and decided to evade the question artfully. Kelly Shackelford, the president of First Liberty Institute, raised the question of judges but also asked directly about the use of gay rights to trump religious freedom: So a baker, like the couple that’s a Christian baker in Oregon, because they couldn’t do a gay-wedding cake, they’ve been prosecuted by the state. They’re bankrupt. They’ve been fined $135,000 and told by the judge that they need to be, quote, rehabilitated. Have you thought that through yet, or do you know yet, where you’re going to stand? Trump chose to talk about judges: So, on the judges: The Federalist Society is the gold standard on judges, are you happy with that? I think, right? Also Heritage [Foundation], Jim is fantastic. Jim DeMint and the Heritage [Foundation] is — I think they’re doing a great job. And they’ve done it also. Plus, we’re going to probably put four or five additional [judges on the list], as I’ve said before. And we’re going do that. We’re going to do that very quickly. And frankly, the decision that you’re looking at is ultimately going to be a court decision. And the people that go on the court over the next period of time are going to have a lot to do with that decision. Because right now, that decision does not look — and I know where you stand on it — and that decision is not looking very good for you. Trump then changed the subject to pro-life and away from the prosecution of gay-marriage dissenters: “And by the way, if you are pro-life, it’s not going to be very good for pro-life right now. And if Hillary gets in, honestly, Mike, if she picks two more judges – not three, four, or five – pro-life is a whole different story.” He continued: Your question is a whole different story. Because ultimately, the court is going to decide that question. They’re going to decide that answer. And I will say this and I’ve said before: I’m putting pro-life judges on. . . . The justices that I’ve put on, and you can look at their names and we have them posted, but the justices, I have gotten tremendous, rave views from the people that we’ve picked. Eleven, we’ve picked 11 so far. And we’ll pick a few more and they’ll be very similar. I’ve gotten tremendous reviews. The alternative is the opposite. There won’t be any pro-life judges put on there. They will be all pro-choice. They will be all, 100 percent. At that point, Mike Huckabee rushed in to run interference and change the subject altogether: Just to add, I think the Second Amendment is gonna be gone. These are issues that should be decided by the American people through the ballot box, not by a handful of rogue justices appointed for life. [Applause] And I think we just want to know you’re going to appoint people who will respect the constitutional separation of powers and not allow people to be appointed who would go and legislate from the judicial branch. And I think you can give us some comfort that you’re going to appoint people who respect the Constitution rather than completely ignore it. Trump gratefully moves on to discuss that really burning issue for Christians in America, what Jesus thinks about gun control: “Total respect for the Constitution. I’m so glad you mentioned the Second Amendment. Because the Second Amendment, like Christianity, the Second Amendment is under siege.” The whole subject of religious freedom was dropped. Trump offered instead to oppose the Johnson amendment (1954), which prevents pastors from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. The audience seemed profoundly appreciative and grateful for a couple of hours of Trump’s time. I’m not. This is not, however, a column about Trump but rather about the extraordinary weakness of Christian conservatism as a political force in America. This weakness is not inevitable: We have far more voters than many other more-effective political movements (such as the gay-rights campaign); we have potentially hundreds of millions in dollars to contribute to our cause. The reason we are so easily fooled and so easily satisfied by a few crumbs from the mouth of a candidate like Trump is that we don’t see an alternative. We are weak and defenseless and are reduced to begging a few words from a man whose character is as weak as his commitment to fight for our rights. #related#That’s the real problem. Not Trump but our inability to focus on what new things need to be done now to protect the rights of traditional Christians (and Jews and Muslims) in America. People ask me how Trump could be worse than Hillary Clinton. Here’s the main way: He would leave in place Obama’s regulatory structure, confirming second-class citizenship for Christians. Meaning that it would now have bipartisan approval and that we would have no mainstream political party from which to fight. Whatever bad things Hillary does, they still leave us with the ability (if we organize in new and more-effective ways) to fight politically this grotesque violation of the rule of law, and of liberty, and of basic decency. And if that happened in a Trump administration, when he caved on the legal essentials, don’t say he didn’t tell you he wouldn’t fight. He did tell you. He has told you. He is telling you. If we Christian conservatives endorse Trump and Trumpism, it is our fault, not his. — Maggie Gallagher is the author of four books on marriage and a longtime contributor to National Review.

Ahmed Chataev – the one armed Islamist The Istanbul massacre mastermind was a “refugee” protected by the European Union before ...

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) will allow a vote on legislation dealing with terrorism and guns next week.

Hillary Clinton took things a bit literal during a campaign stop in North Carolina last week.

“…no one is a monster…”

Attackers open fire, take hostages at restaurant in diplomatic zone of Bangladesh capital.

To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are... - Memes.com is guaranteed to make you laugh with our funny pictures, images, and funny mem