ActRight

Budget: Let's start with a basic fact. Contrary to news reports last week, President Trump is not eliminating funding for Meals on Wheels. He's not even cutting it. How do we know this? Meals on Wheels says so. A statement issued by Meals on Wheels America on Thursday notes that 35% of the revenu

Lawmakers in California are proposing a new law that will make it illegal for anybody to make controversial political statements online.

The people screaming about PBS, the NEA, and the NEH are the same people who helped tear down the arts in favor of the 'counterculture.'

A spokesman for David Brock has informed the press that the Media Matters for America...

A guide to the Gorsuch nomination uproar: If you want the federal government to exercise greater and greater power over daily life in America, with minimum backtalk from us, the people, you deplore the prospective elevation of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. If, by contrast, you regard the e…

Why can’t United States senators, law-school deans, and journalists bother to understand or fairly characterize the legal doctrines they so vigorously oppose? This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein — fresh from lecturing Neil Gorsuch on the novel constitutional concept of “super precedent” — purported to attack Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy by reading a question from a law-school dean: You are a self-professed originalist in your approach to constitutional interpretation. For example, you wrote, and I quote, “Judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly to imply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be.” Now, do you agree with Justice Scalia’s state­ments that originalism means that there is no protection for women or gays and lesbians under the equal-protection law because this was not the intent or the understanding of those who drafted the 14th Amendment in 1868? Note what happened here. Feinstein’s dean went straight from a quote to a straw man, fundamentally mischaracterizing Scalia and originalist jurisprudence in one consequential sentence. First, Scalia’s consistent position wasn’t that the equal-protection clause offered “no protection” to women or gays, but rather that it did not offer special or extraordinary protection. For example, here he was dissenting in Romer v. Evans, a decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment prohibiting local governments from outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation: The only denial of equal treatment it contends homosexuals have suffered is this: They may not obtain preferential treatment without amending the state constitution. That is to say, the principle underlying the Court’s opinion is that one who is accorded equal treatment under the laws, but cannot as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws, has been denied equal protection of the laws. And second, when discussing “originalism,” for the vast majority of originalists, the key isn’t “original intent” but rather a concept called “original public meaning.” Once again, here’s Scalia dissenting from an overreaching majority — this time in U.S. v. Virginia, a case requiring a public all-male military academy to open its doors to female cadets: The Citadel has existed as a state funded school of South Carolina since 1842. And all the federal military colleges — West Point, the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and even the Air Force Academy, which was not established until 1954 — admitted only males for most of their history. Their admission of women in 1976 (upon which the Court today relies), came not by court decree, but because the people, through their elected representatives, decreed a change. . . . In other words, the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law. In other words, when the equal-protection clause was enacted, what were the words understood to mean? Were they understood to sweep away, say, restrictions on women in combat? Were they understood to mean that legislatures couldn’t enact laws that prohibit certain sexual practices? Drafters create a text, and that text has an original, understood meaning. That, in a nutshell is what “originalism” means. Or, if you prefer a master class from a far more esteemed source, here is Judge Gorsuch’s response to Senator Feinstein: WATCH: Gorsuch’s expert defense of original meaning originalism, against original intent. Intent is not law. Meaning is law #GorsuchHearing pic.twitter.com/58hcY0wmcY — Shoshana Weissmann (@senatorshoshana) March 22, 2017 If you don’t have two minutes to watch, the core of his explanation is this: It would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. [The] point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it — what a good judge always strives to do and what we all do — is [to] understand what the words on the page mean, not import words that come from us. . . . It matters not that some of the drafters of the 14th Amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws. That’s what they wrote. And those — the original meaning of those words, John Marshall Harlan captured in his dissent in [Plessy v. Ferguson], that equal protection of the laws does not mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender. It means equal. The essence of originalism is answering this core question: What do the words on the page mean? It is not about making them mean what the judge wants them to mean. It is not about twisting, expanding, or redefining them to adjust their meaning. And to determine what the words mean, especially if the meaning is controversial, we must inquire into the original understanding of that meaning. Here’s a dirty little secret of the federal bench: This is how the vast majority of cases are decided, regardless of the judge’s ideology. Indeed, in court opinion after court opinion you’ll find even the most liberal jurists referring back to the passage of the legislation at issue to understand its meaning. This standard practice breaks down, however, at the cutting edge of left-wing ideology — especially as it pertains to the sexual revolution. Feinstein’s very next response to Gorsuch gave the game away. Rather than address what the words of the 14th Amendment are supposed to mean, she stampeded straight to her favored legal outcome, abortion rights, and talked about how she heard that women in college used to “pass the plate” to raise money to send friends to Mexico for abortions. This, of course, has nothing to do with the meaning of the words in the Constitution. The lesson from the legal Left — a lesson I was very clearly taught by multiple professors in law school — is that when a case is of sufficiently critical social importance, standard rules of legal interpretation give way to the greater demands of social justice. Here’s how one judge put it to me in his chambers: “You should always know the law, and you should always know what’s right. Do what’s right.” This would be an appealing notion if judges possessed godlike powers of judgment, but they don’t; they’re flawed like every other human. So it’s an appalling abuse of power. To smear Neil Gorsuch, the Left has created and attacked a straw man. Judge Gorsuch does not believe for example, that the equal-protection clause provides “no protection” to any class or category of American. Like Justice Scalia, one of his mentors, knew, he knows that all citizens are entitled to the considerable and invaluable protections outlined in the words of the 14th Amendment itself. If the Left wants to enhance or diminish those protections — or to create new rights and privileges entirely — it should win elections and pass laws, rather than looking to the court to pervert the Constitution. — David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., announced Wednesday that he will now support the American Health Care Act following a Tuesday night meeting with President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Barletta told reporters at the Capitol that he flipped after Trump and Ryan agreed to bring legislation to the House floor by late April that would verify Social Security statistics before tax credits are awarded to illegal immigrants. He's doing a hell of a job, Barletta said of Trump. It didn't take much — he got me in 15 minutes and he agreed to meet my concern, and I think he's doing a good job to get this as close as it is to because I don't think it would be without him. The meeting took place before the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner Tuesday night. Barletta, who was a staunch supporter of Trump's presidential campaign, had told the Washington Examiner Monday that he was against the bill, which is set to get a vote Thursday.

Using the tale of an FBI analyst fired under Obama for being an ass, a tale is spun of an out of control Trumpian nightmare for Muslims in the FBI

Left-wing agendas and identity politics above all else.

Tim Allen is catching heat from the Anne Frank Center for a Nazi gag. So why isn't the Center, or anyone else, torching stars for playing the Hitler Card?

Gorsuch looks great in front of the judiciary committee, and does disaster loom for Trumpcare?

For some people, the heated polarization of last year’s presidential election is far from over. One business owner in Chicago is even proclaiming her personal beliefs have put her out of business — and are the reason she’s been ostracized within her community. Suzzanne Monk penned a recent letter about experiences as a business owner since being “outed” as a Trump voter. Suzzanne Monk, who owns Worlds of Music with her husband, penned a recent letter to Crain’s Chicago Business about her experiences as a business owner since being “outed” as a Donald Trump voter. “For 24 years, I have loved living in Chicago with my husband, a native Chicagoan,” Monk’s letter reads. “But for the last year I have not loved living in Chicago. I am ashamed of you, Chicago, and the intolerance you now accept in the name of politics. You see, I am a Trump supporter. My husband is a Trump supporter, too. And because we support Trump,

Terror returned to the streets of London on Wednesday when a black-clad assailant, armed with two long knives, drove his car through a crowd of people on Westminster Bridge before stabbing a police officer to death on the grounds of Parliament. Four people died in all, including the attacker himself, in the worst terrorist incident to hit the UK since the 7 July 2005 bombings.

During MSNBC’s live breaking news coverage of the suspected terrorist attacks in London on Wednesday, NBC News reporter Matt Bradley reported via phone from the British capital and was more worried about the violence helping conservative politicians than he was about the victims: “We've seen this rise of a kind of a right-wing movement here and throughout Europe. And this is only going to put wind in the sails of those who would say that this is an issue that needs to be looked at, that needs to be examined in terms of refugees.”

Social Justice: The Musical Part V is a go! Free Download Link: https://soundcloud.com/chris-ray-maldonado/punch-a-nazi-ft-rucka-rucka-ali-social-justice-the...

In 2015, video of Yale's "shrieking girl" screaming at professor Nicholas Christakis over a Halloween costume email went viral. A year later, Dr. Christakis ...

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through...

Members of the intelligence community incidentally collected communications from the Trump transition team during legal surveillance operations of foreign targets, a top Republican lawmaker said Wednesday afternoon.

Devin Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal.

Jason Chaffetz finds out FBI illegally uses facial recognition software on almost every American original air date 3/22/2017 jason chaffetz fights for presid...

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through "incidental collection."

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday that President Donald Trump's communications could have been picked up through "incidental collection" by intelligence community surveillance. The collections were not related to investigations into Russia and its alleged connections to the Trump campaign. Nunes said the intelligence collections were legal and that he planned to go to the White House later Wednesday to discuss the information with administration officials.

One CEO has been pretty blunt about the people he is not looking to hire. That’s right: No snowflakes need apply. And to make sure he doesn’t hire one by mistake, he’s developed The Snowflake Test for applicants. Kyle S. Reyes, who heads up Silent Partner Marketing in Manchester, Connecticut, wrote an article for the NewBostonPost this month, explaining the reasons for his test. “You’d better put on your safety pin,” he began. “This article is sure to trigger some of you. Why? Because … gasp … you’re about to get some real talk from someone who makes hiring and firing decisions every single day. Companies across the country do their best to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about them,” he continued. “They want EVERYONE to want to work for them.” Indeed, companies are aggressively on the hunt for the very best talent. At the same time, these companies now have to deal with upset employees hashing out

Rep. Devin Nunes, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, just spoke with reporters and confirmed that any Trump communications intercepted during the transition was done so legally via FISA…

On Wednesday, House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) announced, according to Politico, that “Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November's election.” Nunes added that the surveillance was legal, since it was incidental – meaning that the intelligence community was monitoring foreign sources and Trump’s team was on the other side of the line.