Condoleezza Rice shuts down NBC anchor’s question on whether Russia helped Trump win


Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an NBC anchor Wednesday it was not accurate to suggest that Russia flipped the 2016 election in President Trump’s favor. “I don’t think there is any evidence of that. And, you know, I really don’t think that’s a good conversation to have,” she told NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie. Guthrie had just asked whether Russian interference “actually worked” and blocked a victory by former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Read the rest and watch  the video here.

Made up rights and actual rights

It is amazing to me that some of thes candidates ar all about espousing rights that are not in the Constitution such as this new bonehead idea by Pitiful Pete while trashing, ignoring and seeking to repress rights that actually ARE in the Constitution, such as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, to bear arms and even the fundamental right to life.

Beto O’Rourke claims ‘living close to work’ is a ‘right’

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke now claims you have a “right” to live near your job.

“Living close to work shouldn’t be a luxury for the rich,” the former Texas congressman tweeted Monday. “It’s a right for everyone.”

O’Rourke didn’t explain how it’s a right – or if he considers it a constitutional or a human right. But in a video posted on Twitter, the Democrat argued that living closer to one’s work would not only “reduce our impact on climate change and greenhouse emissions” but would also “improve the quality of life” for people.

In the video, O’Rourke claimed “we force lower-income working Americans to drive one, two, three hours in either direction to get to their jobs, very often minimum wage jobs. They’re working two or three of them right now.”

“Rich people are going to have to allow — or be forced to allow — lower-income people to live near them,” he said.

Read more here.

You’re offended, I’m offended, all God’s children are offended!

Second in a series on the assault on Free Speech.

Let’s start with a premise. The US Constitution does not guarantee the right to anyone to not be offended. In fact, if anything it ensures our freedom to offend one another in the free exercise of speech and religion. There are exceptions, of course, and some of them are quite legitimate while others that have wormed their way into our laws are clearly inspired by a desire to control public discourse and this is always dangerous.

For those who may not have ever bothered to read it, this is what the First Amendment actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The language is simple and unambiguous, but God bless the lawyers, we have mountains of case law parsing and speculating just what it is supposed to mean. In doing so they have twisted and turned and bent and turned inside out this basic freedom until it has become a mere shadow of what it was intended to be.

There are many things that offend me, just as I am sure there just as many if not more that offend you. And that’s okay because nowhere in the First Amendment does it soften the idea by saying “unless it hurts someone’s feelings or makes them feel bad or is unpopular or not approved by self appointed elitist guardians of the public domain.”

Some of this hypersensitivity on the part of the perpetually offended is silly and would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to the liberties we cherish. For example I have never understood why atheists get worked up over religious displays such as a cross, Star of David, Menorah or Nativity scene in public. If atheists don’t believe in God then why are they so traumatized by references to what they proclaim to be a fairy tale?

Another place that has become a hotbed of hyperventilation is the college campus. The mere announcement that a conservative speaker has been engaged to give a talk is enough to touch off the wailing, whining and whimpering along with threats, intimidation, and all too often, violence. If there is anywhere that diversity of opinion and vigorous debate should have a home it should surely be the very places that aspire to higher learning. When only one point of view is tolerated that is not learning it is indoctrination.

Is the Electoral College fair or a scam as @aoc contends?

The genius of the electoral college-and the make-up of the Senate for that matter-is that it helps to prevent a tyranny of a concentrated majority imposing their will on a widely diverse country. With States Rights being increasingly eroded by the tendency to legislate through regulation in Washington, which will likely pick up steam again one President Trump leaves office, it is really the only remaining protection smaller population states have against the tyranny of an elitist class in DC, California and New York inflicting their will, values and opinions on he rest of the country.