ActRight

Ted Cruz has rolled out three optimistic new ads today, with two of them including him speaking directly to the camera. Watch them all below.   Every Day Fighter:   Tax Plan:   Worri…

To cast a vote for Trump is to agree with his sexist, perverted, demeaning, backwards, offensive treatment of women. Learn what's at stake. Join us by wielding your influence. Until Trump is defeated, we don't date, sleep with, or canoodle with Trump supporters. The greeks did it. Women during prohibition did it. This is a tried and true method of getting men’s attention when they’re being dumb. #votetrumpgetdumped

After Donald Trump threatened to “spill the beans” on Heidi Cruz, his campaign reps took to the airwaves and Twitter Friday to indicate that they had done th...

This truly is a year when the rules don’t apply. If they did, John Kasich would be back in Columbus trying to figure out whether he sells his soul to Donald Trump or endorses Ted Cruz. #ad#Instead, the Ohio governor is still out on the trail running a delusional vanity project masquerading as a presidential campaign. There is no appetite for his pragmatic, “can’t we all get along” campaign among Republican-primary voters, who have made that abundantly clear. Kasich must hold the record for the most finishes of 4 percent or below of any candidate who has persisted in saying that he expects to be his party’s nominee. He is the Harold Stassen of primary-season futility. Kasich has limped in at roughly 4 percent or lower in Alaska (4.07 percent), Alabama (4.43 percent), Arkansas (3.71 percent), Iowa (1.86 percent), Nevada (3.6 percent), Oklahoma (3.59 percent), and Texas (4.25 percent). RELATED: A Vote for Kasich Is a Vote for Trump The contests that he has done best in, besides his home state, are Vermont, where he finished a close second to Trump and got eight delegates, and the District of Columbia, where he finished a close second behind Marco Rubio and got nine delegates. This is not exactly an electoral juggernaut. Kasich’s performance on Western Tuesday would have been enough to embarrass any lesser mortal out of the race. In Arizona, he finished in fourth place in a three-man race, which sounds like a setup for a bad joke. Marco Rubio had won enough of the early vote that the anemic Kasich couldn’t catch him. In Utah, Kasich bizarrely sought to keep Ted Cruz beneath 50 percent, the threshold for winning all of the state’s delegates. Instead, he succeeded only in holding Cruz below 70 percent, while he finished second — by 52 points. RELATED: The Insane Campaign of John Kasich Kasich has run as a manic, slightly more entertaining version of Jon Huntsman, limiting his appeal to a slice of the party’s moderates. Kasich is a genuine man of faith, but he is prone to self-righteousness and psychobabble of the sort that you’d expect to hear from an over-talkative yoga instructor, including his advocacy of more hugging. For all his foggy rhetoric of uplift, Kasich is AWOL on Trump. Last week, he pronounced himself “very concerned” about Trump’s remarks about women, but didn’t want to say anything further. There’s nothing worse than a self-professed healer who won’t call out the man who represents everything he should abjure in our politics. #share#Kasich might as well be a de facto member of the Trump team. Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics crunched the numbers and found that with Kasich in the race, Trump gets to 1,237 delegates, and without Kasich in the race, Trump falls short. Since Kasich’s only path is a contested convention, this makes his campaign, on top of everything else, a massive self-contradiction. RELATED: Will Kasich Be the Decider? Kasich believes that an open convention would turn to him, which is certainly possible — the same way a meteor strike at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland is possible. The delegate game at a convention would be, in part, an organizational contest, and Kasich’s organization is all but nonexistent. He’d make an electability case based on his good head-to-head poll numbers against Hillary Clinton, although they are elevated because no one has bothered to attack him. This is all academic unless Trump is slowed. The next chance to do it is in Wisconsin, where Kasich at the very least will make it more difficult for Cruz to beat Trump, and perhaps tip the state to the mogul. #related#There is no excuse for Kasich, a politico for decades, not realizing this. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he is still in the race only because he is less realistic and, sadly, less honorable than the candidates who have dropped out before him. John, spare us your sanctimony and your unifying patter. Take a cold-eyed look at reality, and do what’s best for your party and your cause. No hugs necessary. — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: [email protected]. © 2016 King Features Syndicate

“Statement I just sent to media re: Trump's continuing temper tantrum.”

Milo Yiannopoulos (journalist) joins Dave Rubin, discussing his support of Donald Trump, his views on the Black Lives Matter movement, and policy vs politics...

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz sought to gain middle-class support at a rally in Janesville, a major swing voter town in battleground Wisconsin, which he's vying to take in the April primary against rival candidate Donald Trump.

3 RecommendedRecommend Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Anyone who listens to Sean Hannity?s radio show or watches his television program knows how pro-Trump he is. He never says anything negative about Trump, nor will he allow others to without interrupting them and shutting them down. As a result, Trump has been friendly in return and has granted Hannity many interviews, which means high ratings. Yesterday, | Read More

His concept DOES make sense! the President BARACK OBAMA: "I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don't hav...

But why would Rubio, with nothing left at stake, sponsor a smear campaign against the one GOPer who can stop Trump?

Republican lashes out at National Enquirer article claiming he has had several affairs.

NBA Calls NC Bathroom Bill 'Discriminatory Law,' Threatens to Move 2017 All-Star Game

Wait -- what?

‘Ronald Reagan is dead, and he’s not coming back.” “I wish more conservatives could come to grips with this relatively simple fact. We are now in something like the fifth round of the pin-the-tail-on-the-next-Reagan game and it’s getting old. Catering to the conservative base, the GOP presidential candidates keep trying to put on the Reagan mantle the way Cinderella’s ugly stepsisters tried to cram their dogs into her glass slipper. Not gonna happen.” #ad#I wrote the above nine years ago. I’m not plagiarizing myself to save time, but to point out that Reagan obsession on the right has been a problem for a long time. Every election season, Republican candidates start rising to their feet to declare, like the slave rebels in Spartacus, “I’m Ronald Reagan!” “No, I’m Ronald Reagan!” My favorite version came from Bob Dole in 1996. He couldn’t bring himself to fully commit to the play-acting, saying instead, “I’ll be Ronald Reagan if that’s what you want.” My objection to this Reaganophilia isn’t derived from any antipathy toward the Gipper. He was a great man and a great politician. Rather, the problem is with using Reagan as a kind of ideological shorthand. Asking “What Would Reagan Do?” about challenges Reagan never faced has limited value. Before the GOP became the Party of Reagan, it was the Party of Lincoln. But you wouldn’t expect a Republican politician to spend a lot of time promising to free the slaves or preserve the Union. Trying to see today’s economic problems through Reagan-colored glasses isn’t impossible — we’re still over-regulated by a too-large government — but it can be distorting. Similarly, casting the war on terrorism as a replay of the long battle against communism (which Reagan won) can be done, but it requires bending reality to theory. Marxism was a relatively brief and modern imposition on ancient cultures. Islam is an ancient religion, and radical Islam is an effort to fight off the imposition of modernity. Different threats and different contexts require different thinking. All of these criticisms still stand. What’s different these days is the desperate effort to insist that Donald Trump is a new Reagan — not by Trump himself, but by a kind of conservative priesthood eager to prove by analogy what it can’t prove with facts or logic. Newt Gingrich, Bill Bennett, and Rudy Giuliani are just a few of the prominent conservatives miraculously finding Reaganism in the outbursts of a loutish and crude real-estate developer the way the high lamas of Buddhism try to identify a new dalai lama based on a baby’s gurgling. Most of their arguments are shockingly spurious given the intellects involved. Among the most common: “They said Reagan couldn’t win, too.” Logically, this has nothing to do with Trump’s alleged resemblance to Reagan (or Trump’s general-election chances). “They” — whoever they are — also claimed Kermit the Frog couldn’t win 270 electoral votes. That doesn’t mean they were wrong, or that Kermit is an amphibious Reaganite. Of course, ‘they’ were wrong about Reagan. But the ‘they’ in 1980 were overwhelmingly liberal. Trump’s most important critics are overwhelmingly conservative. Indeed, all of the “They said X about Reagan, too” arguments are preposterous, but one stands out: “They said Reagan was a dunce, too.” Of course, “they” were wrong about Reagan. But the “they” in 1980 were overwhelmingly liberal. Trump’s most important critics are overwhelmingly conservative. The claim that conservatives in 2016 are wrong about Trump because liberals 36 years ago were wrong about Reagan is a hard one to diagram on a grease board. And getting to the conclusion that these combined errors mean Trump is Reagan-like is the logical equivalent of crossing a canyon in three leaps. In terms of personal character and ideological seriousness, Trump and Reagan could not be more different. Reagan was one of the most dignified politicians of the 20th century, one who turned his cheek to vicious attacks, refused to use profanity, and rarely showed an angry side. Meanwhile, Trump’s crude and vengeful streaks virtually define the man. Reagan’s ideological principles were derived from decades of reading, speaking, and debating. Trump, meanwhile, is winging it. “I don’t think he has an ideology,” Pat Buchanan told the Washington Post. “He very much is responding to the realities that he has encountered and his natural reactions to them. It’s not some intellectual construct.” Here lies both the irony and farce of the cult-like effort to anoint Trump as the second coming of Reagan. The one meaningful similarity between the two men is that they can both be seen as authentic responses to their times. The difference? Reagan was the right response. — Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected], or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2016 Tribune Content Agency

I was speaking with an individual earlier today about something that?s been on my mind quite a bit lately ? rhetoric. I?m taking an entire course devoted purely to rhetoric this s…

The only evidence the investigator was interested in finding was evidence that supported the accuser's claim

Detectives arrest 32-year-old Muslim man after Pakistani-born Asad Shah, 40, repeatedly stabbed in savage attack

Syndicated columnist Ann Coulter and Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on Friday tweeted out a link to a hoax news story. The parody news story was hosted on a website that aimed to mimic the look of ABC News and was about a Trump protester who said...

We may have finally reached peak campaign immaturity with arguably the most insane Twitter trend of this entire campaign: #TrumpLovesPecker.

For Republicans, a powerful practical argument against nominating Donald Trump should be that it’s unlikely he could win in November. Both candidates have been known to over 90 percent of Americans since last May, and Hillary Clinton has beaten Trump in 50 of the 55 national polls taken since then. In the latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, she leads by an average of 11.2 percentage points and even hits the critical 50 percent level of support.  #ad#Trump supporters stubbornly claim that polls taken at this stage of the race are meaningless. E-mail after e-mail from them sends me a chart showing that Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter for much of the 1980 campaign, but wound up winning a solid ten-point victory. Trump boosters are not the first supporters of a weak general-election candidate to latch on to the 1980 example. In 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported that “Romney aides believe strongly that this race will play out like the 1980 campaign, in which President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan for much of the race until Reagan broke through just before the election.” RELATED: Let’s Get This Straight: Trump Is No Reagan Alas, the analogies between the 1980 election and today are either tenuous or outright wrong. As Dan McLaughlin of RedState exhaustively demonstrates, the linkage doesn’t hold.  One reason is that because the number of polls taken in 1980 was much lower, much of the early evidence of Reagan’s weakness that year came from a single polling firm — Gallup – that dramatically understated his final winning margin. An average of several polling firms would probably have painted a different picture. Also, President Carter’s stratospheric polling numbers in early 1980 were in large part a reflection of the country’s rallying around its leader during the Iranian hostage crisis — support that gradually eroded as Carter failed to resolve it. RELATED: Resentment Republicans Have Their Day As for Reagan’s dramatic surge late in the campaign, it occurred because he swept undecided voters, not because he converted Carter voters to his side. In a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there will be few undecided voters. It’s certainly true that Clinton has high negatives. In this week’s Fox News poll, an astonishing 64 percent of voters think she isn’t honest or trustworthy, and 58 percent have a negative opinion of her. But Trump’s numbers are even worse. He trails Hillary in the Fox poll by 49 percent to 38 percent, largely because his unfavorable rating is 65 percent. (Trump even beats her in the deceit sweepstakes, with 65 percent thinking he isn’t honest or trustworthy.) When asked whether Trump is “scary,” a full 49 percent of voters agree — versus only 33 percent who feel the same way about Clinton. #share#If Trump’s toxic negatives continue to remain that high, he remains a clear and present danger to the rest of the GOP ticket down-ballot. I attended a meeting of a group of conservative activists and political professionals in Washington this week. It included several Trump supporters, but the consensus was that a Trump candidacy would lead to a GOP loss of between two and five Senate seats, possibly erasing the GOP’s Senate majority and any ability to influence a Supreme Court confirmation.  RELATED: The Death of Reagan’s Republican Party Josh Kraushaar, the political editor of National Journal, bluntly concludes that “Trump’s nomination has the potential to reverse the gains that Republicans have spent the past six years building up. . . . You’d think that party leaders would be raising holy hell to protect their hard-earned gains. Instead, they’re whistling past the graveyard.” The argument that Trump boosters make – that, like Ronald Reagan, he can overcome the hostility of the media to beat Hillary Clinton — doesn’t impress Reaganites who worked with the Gipper. Stu Spencer managed Ronald Reagan’s gubernatorial campaigns, and Ken Khachigian was a chief speechwriter for Reagan. Last year, they discussed comparisons between Trump and Reagan as follows: Despite the acclaim he achieved in his motion-picture, television, and political careers, Reagan was never boastful. . . . It was America that was great, not him – a studied contrast with Mr. Trump’s overwhelming self-absorption. We find no similarities other than both Reagan and Trump came out of the entertainment industry. We knew Ronald Reagan. We served alongside President Reagan. Ronald Reagan was our friend. And, Mr. Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan. The burden is still on Trump voters to show that their man can defy history and political gravity and win in November.  – John Fund is national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.

The North Carolina General Assembly overrode legislation Wednesday that would have allowed transgender individuals to use the restroom that coincides with their gender identity, and the mayor of San Francsisco is not happy about it. Mayor Edwin Lee banned city employees from traveling to the Tar...

How will the Republican Party remake itself after the great schism of 2016?

Presidential candidates are given a lot of running room by voters and most journalists when it comes to policy pronouncements. No one expects them to publish a full budget or lengthy white papers with detailed legislative plans. But even by the loose standards of presidential campaigns, Donald Trump is setting a new low for vacuous rhetoric. Trump’s supporters are drawn to him in part because they think he tells it like it is, unlike other politicians. But on the budget, as with trade and immigration, he is telling voters what they want to hear, even though it is not true, just as most conventional politicians have been doing for decades. #ad#Trump wants to come across as a deficit and debt hawk. He has said repeatedly that the nation’s governmental debt is an indication of the incompetence of current and previous elected leaders. He rails against the budget deal struck between outgoing House speaker John Boehner and President Obama because it increased appropriations spending on defense and domestic programs in 2016. He hasn’t exactly promised a balanced budget, but he has said federal debt is a major problem he would address as president. Trump’s other statements and positions, however, make it clear that he’s not inclined to implement a genuine conservative budget but is more likely to fall into the kind of procrastination and excuse-making that has led to today’s massive deficits and debt. What Trump implicitly promises is a closing of the gap between federal revenue and spending without any pain for ordinary voters. He claims that better management, led by him, is all it will take. It is the worst kind of wishful thinking and deception. On entitlements, Trump is essentially in agreement with most Democrats. On entitlements, Trump is essentially in agreement with most Democrats. He says he won’t make any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits. In previous years, he also said Medicaid shouldn’t be cut. He says he now favors converting Medicaid into a block grant to the states, although he has not promised that this switch would reduce federal costs. It is not possible to address the nation’s fiscal challenges while protecting, now and in the future, entitlement spending — unless you are willing to impose massive tax hikes, such as those President Obama proposes. In 1970, combined federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid was 3.7 percent of GDP. Today, spending on these programs, plus the new subsidies for insurance under Obamacare, accounts for more than 10 percent of GDP. And spending on these programs will reach 14.2 percent of GDP by 2040 unless they are changed to reduce their costs. #share#President Obama’s answer to the growing problem of entitlement spending is simple: more revenue. Over the past fifty years, federal revenue has averaged 17.7 percent of GDP. Tax hikes implemented during the Obama years would already push revenue up to 19.4 percent of GDP by 2040. But the president and his supporters want to raise taxes even more to cover the rising costs of entitlement programs. Trump says he disagrees. He has proposed a tax cut of at least $10 trillion over the coming decade. But he has often said that he has no problem raising taxes on hedge-fund managers and other well-to-do Americans who he believes can and should pay more. Faced with massive deficits, and with a commitment not to touch entitlements, it is a safe bet than a President Trump would find raising taxes to solve the problem a very tempting proposition. And a lot of Democrats in Congress would concur. RELATED: D.C.’s Foreign-Policy Establishment Spooked by ‘Bizarro’ Trump Team Trump is for repealing Obamacare. But repeal of Obamacare would actually increase federal deficits unless the spending cuts in Medicare are left in place. And repeal will not be possible without a credible replacement plan, especially since Trump promises he will “take care of everyone.” (So far, Trump’s health-care proposals are little more than meaningless talking points.) A real replacement plan would cost less than Obamacare, but the savings would not be sufficient to close the large deficits projected for the coming years and decades. Trump has also said he will find savings elsewhere in the budget. When pressed to be more specific, his answer is always the same: elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse. This is the most tired, canned answer in the book. Every politician who wants to pretend he’s serious about cutting spending without actually cutting spending resorts to denunciations of unspecified waste in the budget. The only surprise is that Trump hasn’t yet said he will also cut congressional pay and foreign aid. #related#Previously, Trump said he would find $300 billion in annual savings by negotiating down the prices Medicare pays for prescription drugs. This is, itself, problematic, given that such spending only amounts to $80 billion per year. But Trump seems now to have dropped the idea from his health-care plan, instead proposing to allow the importation of drugs at prices set by nationalized health systems. The latter proposal would probably reduce federal spending, but only by very small amounts. The picture that emerges from Trump’s various statements on budgetary matters is not encouraging. Voters have heard him promise repeatedly that he would cut taxes and make no changes whatsoever to entitlement programs. This is certainly one reason he is popular with some voters. When pressed on how he would reconcile these commitments with large and growing deficits, he promises to target drug companies, rich people, and unspecified wasteful spending. In other words, he gives answers that sound pretty much like what President Obama would say in response to the same questions. — James C. Capretta is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Well, this is great news. Ben Carson is claiming that his influence is rubbing off on Donald Trump, and that this is causing Trump to act more ?Presidential.? I am not kidding. Ben Carson says he’s rubbing off on Donald Trump and has convinced him — at least in flashes — to act more presidential. “I’ve had talks about | Read More

Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES So, listen, to get this out of the way, I am sure there are a lot of Donald Trump supporters who are not garbage human beings. I am sure there are quite a lot of them who just quite frankly don’t know about the abominable things he’s done since he started this campaign (including his mockery of a disabled | Read More »