Tag Archives: RNC

TV actor Eric McCormack slammed after calling for blacklisting of President Trump donors in Hollyweird

The “tolerant” Eric McCormack

Remember folks, #LoveTrumpsHate!

From Fox News: “Will & Grace” star Eric McCormack drew comparisons to the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy on Friday after calling for the boycotting of those in Hollywood who attend an upcoming California fundraiser for President Trump.

Canadian-born McCormack, 56, said he wants the Trump donors’ names revealed so “the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t wanna work with.”

Trump plans to attend the Sept. 17 fundraiser in Beverly Hills during a trip to California that will also include visits to the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, The Hollywood Reporter wrote Thursday.
Tickets for the Beverly Hills event, scheduled during the week of the Emmy Awards, will reportedly start at $1,000, with packages for couples costing as much as $100,000.

Hosts for the event will reportedly be Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, RNC co-chairman Tommy Hicks Jr., Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale and Trump Victory finance chairman Todd Ricketts.

In a Twitter message on Friday, McCormack asked that the Hollywood Reporter name names when it comes to fundraiser attendees. “Hey, @THR, kindly report on everyone attending this event,” he wrote, “so the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t want to worrk with. Thx.”

Soon after his tweet appeared, McCormack was blasted on social media, with many of his critics drawing comparisons to McCarthy, whose Cold War efforts to oust Communists from Washington, Hollywood and other spheres of influence resulted in a Hollywood blacklist of those whose loyalty to the U.S. was questioned.

“Hey @jack is this tweet threatening to “blacklist” American Citizens in Hollywood okay for the good of society?” former “Grey’s Anatomy” star Isaiah Washington asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

“How wonderfully fascist of you @EricMcCormack! Yes, how dare anyone in a FREE COUNTRY actually be FREE to support someone that you don’t or have an opinion that differs from yours,” actress Maeve Quinlan reacted. “Anyone that doesn’t get in line with your opinion should absolutely be blacklisted from work.”

McCormack is best known for playing Will Truman in the hit NBC comedy, which was revived for three seasons. His co-star, Debra Messing, is also an outspoken critic of Trump and Republicans.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

MAGA: President Trump raises $24.8M for re-election in less than 24 hours

From Yahoo: President Trump held a rally in Orlando on Tuesday night billed as the kickoff to his reelection campaign. And according to the Republican National Committee, he received nearly $25 million in contributions in less than a day.

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel announced Wednesday that Trump raised a “record breaking $24.8M in less than 24 hours for his re-election.”

“The enthusiasm across the country for this President is unmatched and unlike anything we’ve ever seen!” she tweeted.

RNC chief of staff Richard Walters told Yahoo News that the total is a combination of the amount raised by the Trump campaign and Trump Victory, the joint fundraising arm for the campaign and the RNC.

The RNC took in $10.8 million from major donors at two fundraising events, while the Trump campaign raised $8 million through a phone drive and about $6 million in online donations. (The average online donation was $44, Walters said.)

Trump’s one-day haul is nearly four times the amount former Vice President Joe Biden raised in the first 24 hours after announcing his 2020 presidential campaign.

Biden took in $6.3 million, the largest first-day total for any of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. According to Biden’s campaign, the money was raised from nearly 97,000 individual donors across all 50 states.

The former vice president’s campaign raised slightly more in its first 24 hours than former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke ($6.1 million) and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ($5.9 million).

Biden, though, has faced criticism among Democratic rivals for his embrace of high-rolling donors and top-dollar fundraisers.

“I don’t spend time at fancy fundraisers,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted earlier this week. “Instead, I spend my time meeting voters and thanking grassroots donors who chip in what they can.”

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Democratic National Committee is $6.2M in debt

Bill Allison reports for Bloomberg, June 13, 2019, that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) “has a money problem,” which “could hurt its nominee’s chances of beating President Donald Trump in 2020.”

That’s because whoever wins the party’s nomination will rely heavily on the DNC in the general election for organizing, identifying voters and getting them to the polls. All of that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars by election day.

Signs of the DNC’s money problem include:

  • The DNC has been borrowing money.
  • The DNS is sending out fundraising appeals under the presidential candidates’ names, something it’s never done before.
  • In the first four months of 2019, the party spent more than it raised and added $3 million in new debt.
  • By the end of April, the DNC had collected contributions of more than $24.4 million, but had spent $28.4 million, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosures. It had $7.6 million cash on hand, $1 million less than in January.
  • All of which led the DNC, at the end of April, to post $6.2 million in debt, including bank loans and unpaid invoices to vendors.

In contrast, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is stockpiling cash. It raised nearly $62 million so far this year, two-and-a-half times the DNC’s haul. Thanks in part to President Trump’s non-stop fundraising since winning the White House, the RNC has $34.7 million in the bank and no debt.

Demonrats attribute the DNC’s money problem to:

  • Competition from the 23 Demonrats who are running for president and vacuuming up contributors’ cash, instead of the money going to the DNC. From January through March 2019, 16 presidential Demonrat candidates collectively raised $77 million, or $3 million more than Trump’s committees and the RNC combined.
  • Perception of some contributors that the national party is disorganized — a hangover from the 2016 election.
  • Donors may be discouraged by the growing schism between the old-guard establishment and the younger, activist wing.
  • Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz who, during the 2018 Demonrat primaries, sabotaged Bernie Sanders by surreptiously helping Hillary Clinton. John Morgan, an Orlando-based trial attorney and Demonrat fundraiser, said “Debbie Wasserman Schultz really destroyed a lot of confidence in the DNC for a lot of people and for a lot of different reasons,” and that her favoring of Hillary and mismanagement of the party continues to give donors pause.
  • The DNC must also compete for donations with other Democratic organizations, such as:
    • The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which supports House candidates to ensure Demonrats keep their House majority won in 2018. DCCC has raised more than $40 million this year, more than the DNC’s totals each month.
    • The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), DCCC’s Senate counterpart, has raised $18 million this year.
    • Super PACs such as Priorities USA, the main super PAC for supporting the party’s presidential nominees. Priorities USA’s donors include some of the biggest Democratic givers, e.g., billionaire George Soros, and hedge-fund operators S. Donald Sussman and James H. Simons.

To compete in 2020, the DNC has acquired 100 million cellphone numbers to contact voters via text message. This summer, it will train about 1,000 college juniors who will be ready to hit the ground running next year.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ocasio-Cortez: “Like, is it okay to still have children?”

What happened to my body, my choice?

From Fox News: Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said young people have to ask a “legitimate question” in the wake of climate change and mounting student loan debt: “Is it okay to still have children?”

In an Instagram Live video over the weekend, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., welcomed supporters into her kitchen—and gave a “special hello to my haters”—while she made chili and poured herself a glass of white wine.

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?

She continued: “Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, 100 thousand dollars of student loan debt so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?”

“And even if you don’t have kids, there are still children here in the world and we have a moral obligation to them to leave a better world to them.”

Ocasio-Cortez answered questions from viewers while she continued to prepare her meal. “What would Trump put in chili? BOLOGNA!” she quipped. “He would put bologna in chili. Both because I think that’s what his taste palate is developed to, and for the obvious reason.”

But one of the serious questions was about her signature proposal in the House- the Green New Deal.

The whole premise of the Green New Deal, is that we’re screwed on climate. I’m sorry to break it to you,” she said. “When it comes to climate in particular, we’re actually screwed. There is a global threat to the planet.

She added: “At this point, we don’t even have to prove it. Just walk outside in the winter in a lot of places, and its, either way worse than you’re used to, or way warmer than you’re used to.”

“Hurricanes, storms, wildfires,” she said. “We are dying now.”

While the resolution itself would do little because it is non-binding, it is the first time the policy proposal has been formally outlined in Congress.

“If we called a vote on the Green New Deal, tomorrow or Tuesday when I got back to D.C., and it passed, NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN,” she stressed, seemingly downplaying the impact should it be passed. “Literally, nothing would happen because it is a resolution. It is a statement. Be it resolved. It is us agreeing to a statement. Not any binding course of action.”

The resolution says “a new national social, industrial and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal” is an opportunity to tackle systemic injustices toward minority groups, create millions of high-wage jobs and “provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”

Its proposals include “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;” job creation; healthcare for all; infrastructure investment; guarantees of clean water, healthy food and sustainable environment; and a curiously undefined “access to nature.”

Beyond those broad proposals, the plan and accompanying documents from Ocasio-Cortez include a range of far-fetched goals — and drew swift scorn from Republicans and other critics. The Republican National Committee dubbed it a “socialist wish list” that would kill at least 1 million jobs and disrupt global trade — while costing trillions.

Read the whole story here.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Big heap no surprise: Elizabeth Warren plans to run for president in 2020

Her odds of winning: 1/1024.

From NY Post: Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday announced her intention to run for president in 2020 as a champion of middle-class Americans and a foe of big banks and Wall Street fat cats.

Warren, who said she was creating an exploratory committee that will allow her to raise funds and hire staffers, will be among a crowded field of Democrats taking a shot at the White House.

“America’s middle class is under attack,” Warren said in a four-minute, 30-second video posted to YouTube. “How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie. And they enlisted politicians to cut them a bigger slice.”

In the video, the 69-year-old former law professor lays out her vision of the future, while setting herself up as a foil to President Trump and members of his administration.

“I’ve spent my career getting to the bottom of why America’s promise works for some families, but others who work just as hard slip through the cracks into disaster,” she says. “What I’ve found is terrifying. These aren’t cracks that families are falling into, they’re traps.”

The Republican National Committee dismissed Warren’s candidacy, saying her “out of touch” agenda poses no threat to Trump. “With her lack of support from voters – including in her home state – on top of her phony claim to minority status, now that she is formally running Americans will see her for what she is: another extreme far-left obstructionist and a total fraud,” Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.

The president, who has announced that he will seek re-election in 2020, has trashed Warren in the past for her claims that she is partly Native American, referring to her as “Pocahontas.”

Warren in October released DNA testing results that showed there was “strong evidence” that she has Native American blood. The release was intended to quell questions about her heritage but prompted criticism from Native American leaders and left some supported puzzled why she would rekindle the controversy.

A number of Democrats are expected to announce presidential campaigns in the next few months, including former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who lost a Senate bid in November to GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, are also weighing getting in the race.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Women – anti-Trumpers – Are Boycotting Ivanka Trump's Brand

And how many of these womyn boycotting Ivanka have supported Broaddrick, Jones or Wiley? Yeah, didn’t think so.
ivanka-trump
From Cosmopolitan Magazine: Lindsey Ledford, a 29-year-old student at the University of Maryland-University College, is a self-described “Maxxinista” who shops at her local College Park, Maryland, T.J. Maxx at least three times per week. But about a week ago, her favorite store abruptly lost her business: Ledford was checking out a black blouse with a stripe down the center when, suddenly, she felt like her throat was closing and she couldn’t breathe.
 “My first thought was, Grab them by the pussy. We can do anything we want. Don’t even ask,” Ledford told Cosmopolitan.com.
The blouse was triggering traumatic flashbacks to physical abuse she’d suffered in the past, and to times she’d been grabbed or groped by men without her consent. “None of them ever asked how I felt, what I was thinking, or what I wanted. They didn’t wait,” she wrote in a flurry of tweets at T.J. Maxx after fleeing the store. “That is what ‘Trump’ means to me,” she told me: complete disregard for women and their bodies. “It doesn’t matter if Ivanka’s name is in front of it, or Donald’s.”

disregard

Speaking of disregard for women…


Ledford is now one of a passionate group of women joining forces to boycott both the Ivanka Trump fashion and accessories brand and, unless they drop Ivanka’s line from stores, the retailers who carry it. The list includes T.J. Maxx, Amazon.com, Zappos, Bloomingdale’s, Lord & Taylor, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Dillard’s, DSW, Macy’s, Marshall’s, and Saks Off Fifth. “As much as I love shopping at T.J. Maxx, I can’t stomach seeing that name front and center,” she said. “Supporting a brand — Trump — that condones sexual assault and makes excuses for it is wrong.” (Ledford also logged a complaint with a phone call to customer service; she said a rep politely listened and promised to pass along her feedback.)
text

Shannon Coulter on a mission against Ivanka


The boycott was hatched on Twitter by Shannon Coulter, CEO of a boutique marketing agency in San Francisco, on October 10, in the wake of Trump’s now-infamous Access Hollywood tape; since then, Coulter’s tweets about the boycott, including tweets aimed at the retailers who carry Ivanka Trump products, have earned an estimated 1 million impressions on Twitter, according to her analytics report.
For a long stretch of the campaign, “[women] were ready to give Ivanka a pass because she’s his daughter and it’s hard to be objective about your dad. But the Trump tape just sent people over the edge,” Coulter told me. “I think [women] took particular offense, as I did, to the fact that Ivanka tries to make feminism a part of her brand but is standing by, as an official campaign surrogate, a guy who is an alleged serial sexual assaulter of women. The disconnect was too big. And they were ready to speak up about it and flex their consumer power about it.”
I'm sure this daughter can be objective about her father

A father and daughter who the proggies always give a pass


Though Ivanka insisted this week at a Fortune Most Powerful Women event: “I am not a surrogate. I’m a daughter,” the lines between Ivanka and her father’s incendiary politics have been blurred beyond recognition for some former fans and customers. Ivanka and her eponymous line are “inextricably tied to a movement that denigrates women,” Amy Andelora, a 52-year-old high school teacher in Mesa, Arizona, told me.
Days after the tape’s release, Andelora tweeted a plea to Neiman Marcus, asking the retailer to remove Ivanka’s line. She is also boycotting her favorite store, Nordstrom, where she says she formerly spent “hundreds of dollars per month,” because, similar to Ledford, she felt triggered by a pair of Ivanka shoes.
drama
“It’s a visceral response, when I see the name ‘Ivanka’ nestled inside a shoe,” she said. ”The man who assaulted me used almost exactly the method Donald Trump described in his conversation with Billy Bush. I can’t see a Trump-related label without remembering what happened to me three years ago in a house I couldn’t escape.
Though some customers are defecting, Ivanka Trump’s eponymous line — an estimated $100 million operation in the last fiscal year, according to a July report in Forbes — has thrived in spite of her father Donald Trump’s wildly controversial presidential campaign. (Trump has made damning comments about women, Mexican and Muslim immigrants, and Gold Star families, while Ivanka, an executive vice-president at the Trump Organization, has consistently defended him as a “feminist,” insisting she knows him to be different.) As a private company, the Ivanka Trump brand does not release sales or profit numbers. But an Ivanka Trump brand PR representative told Cosmopolitan.com that sales and revenue grew 37 percent over 2015.
“Over the past year many more women have discovered and become loyal to the brand, leading us to experience a significant year over year revenue growth,” said Abigail Klem, chief brand officer through the representative.
According to annual and quarterly reports by her licensing company GIII, sales at the Ivanka Trump brand grew $29.4 million over last year, and increased $11.8 million in the last six months. “Whether or not people are saying good things or bad things, her name is getting out there,” Madeline Hurley, a retail industry analyst at market research firm IBIS World, said. “She can’t really pay for the press that she’s getting.”
But for some, the fact that Ivanka’s business has appeared to profit from the exposure of the Trump campaign is all the more reason to boycott. “[Ivanka] is supporting one of the most offensive, sexist, racist, xenophobic human beings to ever run for president,” Ledford said. “She is making a buck off it.”
Though Ivanka said at this week’s Fortune event that she’s “always tried to maintain complete separation between [her brand] and the campaign,” Ledford and others point to what they feel is a notable example to the contrary: after introducing her father at the Republican National Convention (in a speech filled with traditionally Democratic policies like equal pay, paid leave and affordable childcare), Ivanka tweeted a Macys.com link to buy the blush-pink shift she was wearing from her collection with the line: “Shop Ivanka’s look from her #RNC speech.”
text

Don’t you DARE inquire as to where to buy this dress…(at least it wasn’t blue!)


“Do I think it’s appropriate for her to tweet out a link to where you can buy the dress that she was wearing? No, definitely not,” said Dini von Mueffling, founder of an eponymous public relations and strategy agency in New York. “Instead of tweeting about her dress, I think the message that she should have put out there was how honored she was to be part of a moment in our nation’s history, and to be part of trying to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.”
Gloria Ratcliffe, once a faithful customer, threw out a pair of Ivanka Trump pumps after another of Ivanka’s high-profile campaign appearances — when she attended the second debate in support of her father, just days after the release of the now-infamous tape. Ratcliffe also decided against buying bridesmaids dresses for her spring wedding from Nordstrom, as well as shoes for the wedding party from DSW, because both carry the Ivanka Trump brand.
Some anti-hate attire for the wedding, perhaps?

Some anti-hate attire for Ratcliffe’s wedding, perhaps?


“My wedding is a day of love. I’m not going to wear clothes that represent hate,” Ratcliffe said. “[Trump] doesn’t respect women at all, and I’m not giving my money to people who are supporting him, because it’s going to inevitably end up in his pocket.” (Ivanka’s line is a sub-brand of the Trump Organization).
So far, none of the retailers who carry the Ivanka Trump brand have dropped the line in response to the boycott. Cosmopolitan.com reached out to 12 retailers; only two replied. A representative for Nordstrom said: “We have received some feedback from customers, though we don’t currently have plans to stop offering this brand.” (When asked about the nature of that feedback, the representative didn’t answer). Zappos declined to comment.
But Coulter and the women boycotting Ivanka’s brand aren’t giving up. Ledford, for instance, is still steering clear of T.J. Maxx: In addition to voting for Hillary Clinton and donating to her campaign, Ledford feels the boycott is another way of taking concrete political action. It’s “something I can do to say ‘enough is enough,’” she says. “I can not give my money to them.”
Coulter continues tweeting, every day, multiple times per day, and calling retailer customer service lines to complain about the Ivanka brand. She says she has received backlash for the boycott on Twitter — some men, in particular, argue that Ivanka shouldn’t be held accountable because they believe she’s being manipulated by PR people or by her father.
“I don’t think that’s true,” Coulter said. “She’s the head of an international, $100 million dollar a year brand. She’s sophisticated. I think she’s smarter than Donald Trump. Part of why I started the boycott is because I respect her as a businesswoman. We should hold her to a higher standard.
And just how many liberal women were triggered by this?

Exit question: How many liberal women were triggered by this fine example of a “higher standard?”


DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Republican National Committee spends $0 on TV ads for Trump

polls_GOP_Suicide_4337_123568_poll_xlargeKenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt report for Politico, Oct. 13, 2016:

A Politico analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the [Republican National] committee has not spent anything on commercials boosting Trump since he emerged as the party’s likely nominee.
That’s a stark departure from recent elections. In 2008 and 2012, the RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on so-called independent expenditures — principally TV ads, but also direct mail and phone banks — supporting its nominees or attacking their Democratic rivals.
The lack of air cover has prompted grumbling from Trump aides and allies, many of whom believe that the RNC was never fully supportive of their candidate and that it’s now turning its back completely on the anti-establishment nominee as his poll numbers crater.
“The Democrats have an unprecedented and lopsided advertising advantage in this race like we have never seen before, and it is having a serious and negative effect,” said Curt Anderson, a former RNC political director who is helping a pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. “It is possible that Trump has sealed his fate at this point, but it is still a terrible mistake not to have $50 million of advertising from the Republican Party exposing Hillary Clinton and keeping her numbers down,” said Anderson, who helped to lead the RNC’s independent expenditure effort in 2004 and 2008.
In 2004, the committee spent $18.2 million on independent expenditures — or IEs, in campaign parlance — boosting George W. Bush’s reelection bid. In 2008, the RNC’s IE spending surged to $53.5 million in support of John McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama. And in 2012, the RNC spent $42.4 million on IEs boosting Mitt Romney or opposing President Obama — with nearly 80 percent of the spending occurring before mid-October.
By contrast, this cycle the RNC has spent only $321,000 on independent expenditures attacking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And all of that spending occurred last fall — before Trump had emerged as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination.
RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh said the committee is not going to spend any more money this cycle on television ads, but that the decision is completely unrelated to Trump.
Rather, she said, it stems from a strategic calculation made soon after the 2012 election that “that is not an efficient use of party committee dollars to spend money on television.” Pointing to a report that assessed the shortcomings of Republican efforts in the 2012 election, she said RNC leaders determined that the party’s money was better invested in data-driven voter contact operations.
“We put people on the ground for three years, invested in communities, doing data and voter registration, so that when we had a nominee, we would be able to link up with that nominee and work together to insure that the nominee had the best field program that the Republican nominee has ever had,” said Walsh.

Blah, blah, blah.
rnc-chief-of-staff-katie-walsh
See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

No records that top Clinton aides Mills or Abedin received ethics training

shock
From Daily Mail: State Department records do not show Hillary Clinton’s top aides completing their ethics training on an annual basis as legally required.
A set of documents provided to McClatchy by the Republican National Committee that were later made available online do not show Clinton, her chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Protocol Dennis Cheng, Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan and others having taken the required course.
The State Department says it’s possible that they did take the yearly ethics trainings and blamed sloppy record keeping for the lack of documentation.
baby laughing
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said today that it ‘would make sense,’ though, that Clinton’s employees skipped the training ‘since Hillary was planning a criminal enterprise trading government favors for cash.’
The Republican has alleged that Clinton took advantage of her position at the State Department to institute a ‘pay for play’ scheme that rewarded major donors to her family’s charity with government favors.
Trump says he’ll introduce ethics reforms in the executive branch if he wins the White House.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement Thursday afternoon that Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, should be held accountable for her employees’ negligence. ‘The State Department’s own regulations say the responsibility for carrying out the agency’s ethics program rests with the secretary, and by all accounts, it was never a priority for Hillary Clinton,’ Priebus said.
hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480
The GOP elections chief said, ‘The complete absence of records showing Clinton and her top aides completed annual ethics trainings required by federal law is par for the course for her tenure as secretary of state, where the rules didn’t seem to apply and pay-to-play was the name of the game. ‘Too much is at stake in this country to have our next president compromised by conflicts of interest with foreign donors and besieged by one scandal after another.’
The Clinton campaign did not provide McClatchy with a response to the allegations, and it did not immediately respond to a request from DailyMail.com. 
Several of the aides that State could not produce documents still work for Clinton on her campaign staff. Sullivan, Cheng and Abedin all have senior roles in her White House effort. Cheng and deputy assistant secretary Philippe Reines both took their new employee ethics training, McClatchy reported. The documents do not show them completing the requirement in subsequent years.
A spokeswoman for the State Department told McClatchy she could not comment on individual cases because the government is barred from sharing employee records under the Privacy Act.
The State Department official, Elizabeth Trudeau, said that she would, however, ‘caution against drawing any conclusions simply from the absence of documentation provided in response to a FOIA request.’
McClatchy says that officials indicated that State may not have kept track of the records before the training was offered online at the end of Clinton’s four-year tenure.
In one email exchange from Clinton’s final months in office that was obtained by the RNC through a Freedom of Information Act Request Abedin is informed by a State Department official that she is delinquent on the training and must take it online or through an attorney in the next two weeks.  It’s unclear from the documents State provided in response to the RNC’s federal lawsuit whether she complied.
Trump’s campaign accused Clinton of being ‘focused on personal enrichment’ instead of State Department business.  ‘The Middle East went up in flames and ISIS exploded onto the globe. Now, all the people who’ve been paying off Hillary for years are funding her campaign,’ National Policy Director Stephen Miller said.
He added, ‘Mr. Trump has proposed new ethics reforms to restore honor to our government, while Hillary Clinton is calculating how much money she can make selling the office of the Presidency for profit.’
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

'God's Not Dead 2' Billboard Controversy Results in Free Advertising

GodsNotDead2Poster
From Hollywood Reporter: The text, “Judged by God,” was deemed too incendiary for the Republican National Convention, but billboard companies across the country responded by donating their services.
A controversy over a giant sign that would have advertised the Aug. 16 DVD release of God’s Not Dead 2 at the Republican National Convention two weeks ago has earned the movie about $25,000 in donated advertising.
The filmmakers had agreed to pay $64,000 for their sign in Cleveland, but emails from Orange Barrel Media said the text “would not be approved. Too incendiary.”
Orange Barrel didn’t say where the objection came from, but the sign was supposed to say: “I’d rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God.”
NOTE: From CNN…”But it was canceled because the company Orange Barrel Media told the movie’s distributor Pure Flix that it didn’t like the “judged by God” message, calling it “too political” and “way too incendiary,” according to a report by The Hollywood Reporter.”

Ike Wingate/LinkedIn photo

Ike Wingate/LinkedIn photo


After the story of the billboard controversy broke in The Hollywood Reporter, Ike Wingate, the CEO of Wingate Media Group of Nashville, Tenn., offered the filmmakers 20 small indoor signs and an outdoor billboard for free, then asked members of the Independent Billboard Operators Association if others might want to do likewise. About a dozen billboard companies donated space in nine states, including Florida, Arkansas, Virginia and Georgia.
“It was an overwhelming response that I never would have predicted,” said Wingate. “I’d guess that would have cost them about $25,000. It’s some major coverage they are getting, so that might be conservative.” Among the donors are National Outdoor Advertising, Look Advertising, Patriot Outdoor and InterState Outdoor.
God’s Not Dead 2 stars Melissa Joan Hart as a teacher under fire for quoting scripture in the classroom.
“As a Christian, I have no problem helping them get their message out, and we strongly believe in freedom of speech and of religion,” said Wingate. “Billboards get plenty of bad press, so any time we can be instrumental in getting positive messages out into the community, we’re going to do that.”
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Prominent Republicans sign off on same-sex marriage

suicidal GOP

More betrayal from the GOP. More reason to stop registering yourself as a Republican.
For the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party boldly proclaimed its platform as “Renewing American Values.” Among the “American values” the Republican Party vowed to “renew” was “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage”:
“The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
Blah, blah, blah.
All lies.
Right after Mitt Romney “lost” (see “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election”) the presidential election to the POS, noises began within the GOP and among so-called conservative pundits (like Sean Hannity) that, to win, the Republican Party should try to become “more appealing” to certain demographic groups, such as women and Hispanics.
In other words, transform the GOP into a paler version of the Democratic Party by pandering to those groups and to hell with principles, values and beliefs! As if Democrat voters would actually be fooled and so switch to a paler imitation of the Democratic Party.
Now we can attach names to some of those voices.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for the New York Times, Feb. 26, 2013 that “dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.”
The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.
Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who came out as gay several years ago, has spent months in quiet conversations with fellow Republicans to gather signatures for the brief. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the suit against Prop. 8.
Among the 75 RINO signatories of the brief are:

  • Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid.
  • Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey.
  • William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts.
  • Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor.
  • Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York.
  • Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser.
  • Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush.
  • James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official.
  • David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director.
  • Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.
  • Steve Schmidt, who was a senior adviser to the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Some high-profile Republicans who support same-sex marriage — including Laura Bush, the former first lady; Dick Cheney, the former vice president; and Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state — were not on the list as of Monday.
The presence of so many well-known former officials suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”
“The ground on this is obviously changing, but it is changing more rapidly than people think,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former House leadership aide who did not sign the brief. “I think that Republicans in the future are going to be a little bit more careful about focusing on these issues that tend to divide the party.”
If the above doesn’t convince you that you’re wasting your time and $ with the GOP, take a look at my post of November 15, 2012, Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud.
So what’s next on the fickle Republican elite’s agenda?
How about abortion?
Why not? After all, those single women whose votes the GOP so covets are pro-abortion, and the party has to change to become more appealing to women! — and to Hell with the sanctity of human, albeit yet unborn, life,
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0