Tag Archives: RNC

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.


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.”


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.)


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.


“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.”


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?”


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.


See also:


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


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.


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.’


‘God’s Not Dead 2’ Billboard Controversy Results in Free Advertising


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.”


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,


Obama 2012 campaign conspired to register 11,000 in NC against state law


Only those who have eyes but refuse to see, and ears but refuse to hear, ignore the massive vote fraud that was perpetrated across America in the pivotal 2012 election.

As examples, there were:

  • 59 voting divisions in the city of Philadelphia where Mitt Romney did not receive a single vote.
  • Reports of voting machines repeatedly switching votes from Romney to Obama.
  • Counties with voter registration rates of more than 100%.
  • Reports of people unable to vote because records allegedly (and erroneously) showed they had already voted.
  • Reports of Obama voters being bussed in from outside the state.
  • An Obama campaign worker recorded on tape helping someone to register to vote in more than one state.
  • Tens of thousands of military overseas ballots being lost or delivered late.

For more, see “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election,”

Despite all these reports and signs of vote fraud, neither the Romney campaign nor the Republican National Committee (RNC) did anything to expose the fraud or challenge the alleged election results.

If you’re wondering why and don’t know about a strange legal agreement signed by the RNC 30 years ago, the 1982 Consent Decree, in which the RNC agreed not to prevent or challenge vote fraud, see my post of Nov. 15, 2012, “Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud”.

And so it’s up to the American people and citizens groups to do the job of the useless Republican Party.

One such group is the Civitas Institute, a conservative organization in North Carolina dedicated to “The vision … of a North Carolina whose citizens enjoy liberty and prosperity derived from limited government, personal responsibility and civic engagement.”

James Simpson reports for Examiner.com, Feb. 20, 2013, that North Carolina does not allow online voting. But the Civitas Institute discovered that the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Obama 2012 Campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the Internet in violation of state law. SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website, Gottaregister.com, to use a web-based registration program.

Civitas has confirmed this through records requests filed with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The counting is not yet complete.

Currently California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Nevada, Maryland, and New York allow some form of online voter registration. North Carolina and many other states do not. For obvious reasons, this method is fraught with vulnerabilities to fraud.

Another, still on-going, study by Civitas Institute finds that 832 people over 112 voted by absentee ballot in 2012, but there are only 330 people over 110 in all of the U.S. according to the 2010 census. 68.5% of those amazing over-112-years-old Americans were Democrats (SURPRISE!), 27.5% Republicans, and 4% unaffiliated. A glitch causes ballots to default to January 1, 1900 when voters do not enter their birth date, which accounts for most of this. This is just one of many problems with NC voter rolls, which are in a shambles and vulnerable to fraudulent votes.

Simpson concludes:

“the Obama administration…have shown themselves over and over to be completely contemptuous of the law – from vote fraud to Fast-n-Furious; from Benghazi-gate to recess appointments and unconstitutional executive orders, the list is endless. As I described in a WorldNetDaily article last November, the Obama administration was willing to use whatever means at its disposal to win this election, legal and illegal. Up until now, my assumption has been that, while they plainly engaged in vote fraud in some circumstances, it wasn’t enough to throw the election. Depending upon whether or not they used tricks like this nationwide – and they probably did – they may have in fact stolen this election.”


“…the North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) and the Obama 2012 Campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the Internet in violation of state law.”

GASP!!! That’s a conspiracy!!!

Just tell that to the next pretentious media personality snootily dismissing by deriding those looney “conspiracy theorists.”

H/t Obama Release Your Records


Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud

Friends and Patriots,

It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.

Are you ready for this?

Here we go….

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.

In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.

Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?

Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.

True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht (read more about her, here)

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

  • The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
  • The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
  • The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

  • Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
  • Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

  1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.
  2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

  3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/) to:

  • EVERYONE on your email list.
  • Media people for whom you have email addresses.
  • Tea Party groups you know.
  • Post the link on your Facebook page.
  • Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.
  1. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.