ActRight

Parents say teachers are too quick to call police to handle routine classroom behavioral issues.

This is from The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 115: https://soundcloud.com/benshapiroshow/ep115

Hillary Clinton is currently the subject of the highest-profile national-security investigation in recent memory. She is also the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. She is also the wife of a former president (a Democrat). She is also a former member of the (Democratic) presidential cabinet whose attorney general, Loretta Lynch (a Democrat), is conducting the investigation and will determine whether to prosecute. Someone who doesn’t know any better might wonder about a conflict — or conflicts — of interest. #ad#Now it emerges that on Monday evening Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch spent a half-hour chatting aboard Lynch’s private plane on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Rest assured, though: “There was no discussion of any matter pending for the department or any matter pending for any other body,” Lynch told reporters afterward. She and the former president mainly discussed Clinton’s “grandchildren,” their travels, and “golf.” If it was not already clear, it most certainly is now: It’s not simply that our highest officials are above the law. It’s that they know they are, and they can’t even be bothered to hide it. An attorney general capable of feeling even an ounce of shame would have nixed the meeting with Clinton in the interest of projecting some modicum of objectivity. For more than a year, we’ve known that Hillary Clinton broke the law. The Federal Records Act explicitly requires “the head of each Federal agency” — including the secretary of state — to preserve any “records,” including e-mails, related to the agency’s essential operations; and federal criminal law punishes as a felony anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys” an official government record.” Furthermore, at least 2,000 of the e-mails on Clinton’s private server contained classified, or even “top secret,” information — in direct contradiction of her assurances, and the law. Finally, it became public knowledge in October that Clinton forwarded the real name of a confidential CIA source over her unsecured private server; shortly after, the State Department refused to release three-dozen pages of e-mails on the grounds that the intelligence contained in them could potentially damage national security. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, Loretta Lynch is almost certainly not going to prosecute the former secretary of state. The Democrats’ hold on power is at stake. Failure to prosecute would be a grievous blow to the rule of law, but it seems that Democratic higher-ups don’t much care. And, what is more, they can’t even be bothered to pretend. An attorney general capable of feeling even an ounce of shame would have nixed the meeting with Clinton in the interest of projecting some modicum of objectivity. Even Bill Clinton, for whom being alone with a woman on a private plane is just an average Monday, might have been persuaded that this particular rendezvous was bad optics. But apparently not. #related#For years, Democrats have decried the “appearance” of impropriety among officeholders. When the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” New York governor Andrew Cuomo called the reasoning “either naïve or Machiavellian.” Democrats have long contended that even the appearance of impropriety — let alone actual corruption — undermines public confidence in the government. Just imagine if Alberto Gonzales had had a private pow-wow with Scooter Libby’s wife in 2006. But Democrats are, as always, exempt from their own rules. What has changed is that they’re no longer even pretending otherwise. — Ian Tuttle is a National Review Institute Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism.

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

You could not draw a better picture of what is wrong with the American legal system than Richard Posner did by asserting his opinion of the U.S. Constitution. Posner condemned the document he has sworn an other to defend, which is the basis of all U.S. law — a document of universally recognized historical importance. Posner, ?

Brzezinski Calls Claim Clinton and Lynch Didn't Discuss FBI Investigation 'a Complete Sham'

Yet another "child" terrorist in an atmosphere of unrelenting incitement against Jews.

An unnamed source affiliated with the Trump campaign has confirmed to CNN that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has received official paperwork for the vice presidential vetting process.

You can really see the love

Chairman of select committee 'disappointed' by press criticism of House report

Geert Wilders: We Must Preserve Western Identity and Civilisation By Ending Muslim Mass Migration

The fixation on men behaving badly distracts from more fundamental issues.

After a nine-month stay in Qatar, Ahmed Mohamed returned to Texas this week with a deeper appreciation for his religion and a thicker skin.  

Stefan Molyneux has even more to say to inconsistent liberals... Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up f...

Sweden's police chief has unveiled the force's latest weapon in the fight against sexual assault: Wristbands reading "Don't touch me".

Scott Osborn ~ Taking children to Christian worship assemblies violates their human rights, according to a United Nations committee. INSANITY!

India, Canada, Australia and the United States are among those making welcoming noises for the future.

The number of Americans proud of their country has dropped significantly in the last five years, according to the latest Fox News Poll.

“…clear negative consequences…”

A man with a concealed carry permit stopped a shooting at a nightclub in Spartanburg, SC over the weekend, and the national media totally ignored the story. [caption id="attachment_5108135" align=

Pregnancy is only a good thing when the mother wants it.

When asked if “Granting every American citizen over 21-years old a universal basic income of $13,000 a year — financed by eliminating all transfer programs (including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing subsidies, household welfare payments, and farm and corporate subsidies) — would be a better policy than the status quo,” 58 percent of the IMG Economic Experts panel at Chicago Booth disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 19 percent of them were uncertain, and only 2 percent agreed. Some interesting answers include the one by MIT’s Damon Acemoglu. He is in the uncertain camp and he says “Current US status quo is horrible. A more efficient and generous social safety net is needed. But UBI is expensive and not generous enough. Stanford’s Robert Hall who is against the proposition says “Limitation to people over 21 can’t be the right answer.” Chicago’s Steven Kaplan who is in the let’s do it camp says “UBI is step in right direction, but very complicated. Devil would be in details. So, lots of uncertainty.” The whole thing is here and well-worth looking at. Also very worth reading is a debate on the issue between economists Deirdre McCloskey and Paul Winfree. McCloskey writes: Giving money is good because it respects the dignity of the recipients. It treats them like adults, not children. When you treat people like adults, they tend to act like adults. Yet a far better way to help the poor is to have a vibrant economy. The money for the minimum income doesn’t grow on trees — it has to be taxed from someone. And such redistributions as a minimum income are minor sources of enrichment of the poor when set beside the mighty engine of trade-tested betterment. Income per head adjusted for inflation has risen since 1800 by an astounding 3,000 percent. If half the income of 1800 were redistributed from rich to poor that would be nice. Yet it would result in only a 100 percent increase in the aggregate income of the poor, and 3,000 beats 100 every time. Winfree responds: There are, however, important differences between Friedman’s proposal and the universal basic income in conversations today. First, Friedman didn’t accept the technological unemployment justification for a basic income. Second, his negative income tax would have replaced the entire safety net (including Social Security and Medicare) and also any government restrictions on access to markets and capital faced by poor people. This included eliminating minimum-wage laws, licensing restrictions, pro-union laws, tariffs, and agriculture subsidies. Furthermore, Friedman wasn’t blind to the public-choice problems of a basic income. “The major disadvantage,” Friedman wrote in 1962 “Capitalism and Freedom,” “is its political implications. There is always the danger that instead of being an arrangement under which the great majority tax themselves willingly to help an unfortunate minority, it will be converted into one under which a majority imposes taxes for its own benefit on an unwilling minority… I see no solution to this problem except to rely on the self-restraint and good will of the electorate.” … But those interested in poverty would be better off changing focus altogether. Rather than debating competing systems to alleviate poverty, we should be focused on integrating the poor into an expanding overall economy to end real poverty altogether. As for me, like McCloskey I believe that UBI “respects the dignity of the recipients. It treats them like adults, not children. When you treat people like adults, they tend to act like adults.” I also agree with Acemoglu that the “current US status quo is horrible.” I believe that it needs to be fundamentally and dramatically reformed. But like Friedman and Winfree I am “not blind to the public choice problems of the basic income.” I don’t believe politicians and the interest groups they cater too would agree to replace all existing anti-poverty programs with a UBI and that, if by some miracle they agreed to get rid of everything else, they wouldn’t bring some anti-poverty programs back over time.

Hillary Clinton was speaking at the US Conference of Mayors and said a pretty messed up thing, even for her. The democratic nominee expressed her opinion that Americans deserve better than a Consti…

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) grilled Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson Thursday over the “systematic scrubbing of law enforcement and intelligence materials,” connecting the issue to the 2014 Fort Hood shooting and other attacks. Cruz began by comparing the number of references to “Jihad,” “Muslim,”...

America’s suburbs: They’re sprawling, replete with shopping centers and bike paths – and they’re often where presidential elections are won or lost. But in a potential problem for the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump has not fared so well in the ‘burbs so far this cycle.