RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet Dhillon wrote today in the Daily Caller about San Francisco's new policy of allowing non-citizens to vote in its School Board elections. Ms. Dhillon explains that liberals see non-citizens as a powerful force to support their radical policies:
Why are noncitizens — legal and illegal — being invited to vote in the first place, in school board elections or, as in some other jurisdictions, other municipal elections? The reason is clear: Liberal politicians, devoid of ideas and with dwindling support among Americans, see a promising voter pool in foreign nationals who might be future citizens, and have decided to cut out the waiting time and just let people vote whether they meet established criteria or not. . . .
The School Board in San Francisco controls a massive bureaucracy with a huge budget, with enormous power and influence:
San Francisco politicians are trying to play this alarming development off as no big deal, “just” a school board election because after all, some of these children are born here and are citizens themselves (some, of course, are not) and why shouldn’t the parents have a say? — so the argument goes. But make no mistake – if Americans stand by and allow foreign citizens to control our schools, the next step will be foreign citizens voting for Mayor, District Attorney, Sheriff, Board of Supervisors, judges, and more — after all, they live here — why shouldn’t they have a say in local government? Note as well how carefully San Francisco politicians avoid making any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants – for such distinctions contradict the open-borders extremism of the left.
Focusing on the San Francisco school board elections, the implications are alarming enough. San Francisco Unified School District is the seventh largest in the nation, educating some 55,000 students annually, and very demographically diverse, with 36.3 percent Asian, 26.5 percent Hispanic, 13.3 percent white, and 7.6 percent black students. The 136 total schools in the district employ 10,000 employees, and had a budget for the 2016-2017 school year of a whopping $823,841,337 — averaging $10,182 in unrestricted funds per student ($566,065,162), with an additional quarter billion dollars in restricted funds. Over this massive government machine reigns the seven-member, liberal, San Francisco Board of Education, responsible, in its own words, “for establishing educational goals and standards; approving curriculum; setting the district budget … confirming appointment of all personnel; and approving purchases of equipment, supplies, services, leases, renovation, construction, and union contracts.” The Board of Education also appoints the county superintendent of schools.
Ms. Dhillon concludes by pointing out the obvious fact about real foreign influence on our elections that is being completely ignored by the mainstream media:
If our apathetic citizens continue to turn out at barely 50 percent in off-year elections, the chances of motivated non-citizens having a substantial impact on the outcomes of entry-level political races such as Board of Education, will increase as both politicians and non-citizens see a path forward for real foreign influence in our elections, far more tangible and potent than the specter of Russian bots tweeting propaganda in a social media echo chamber. While we are distracted by such issues at the national level, on the ground, non-Americans are having a growing impact every day at the polls. The Russian bots aren’t voting on the billion-dollar school board governance – but foreign nationals surely are, and the movement is coming to a city near you.
The entire Op-Ed is well worth a read. Ms. Dhillon will be speaking at the RNLA's National Election Law Seminar on August 3 and 4 in St. Louis, Missouri. There is still time to register to hear Ms. Dhillon and many other expert speakers.
Today, we saw a lesson in social media. This morning if you searched “California Republicans” on Google, you saw a summary screenshot of “ideologies” for the California Republican Party with the first listed as “Nazism.”
While officially Google refers you to their “Feedback” button to report a concern, the reality is this was only changed due to pressure from right-of-center social media groups and Republican leaders such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy:
RNLA Vice President for Communications and RNC Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon flagged this on her Facebook page and RNLA helped let the “movement” know about this problem early this morning. It spread fast and Google removed the offensive section and instead tried to cast the blame on Wikipedia.
The fact of the matter is that although--subject to pressure--Google “fixed” the problem as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern, “California Democrats” have an ideology listing while “California Republicans” do not.
What makes this all more troubling is the proximity to the California primary. Coupled with Facebook’s refusal to verify Republican candidates such as California Secretary of State candidate Mark Meuser, the bias of the Silicon Valley social media giants remains concerning. As we saw today, the solution is, at least in part, to fight back.
Yesterday, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss in the challenge to U.C. Berkeley's disparate treatment of conservative speakers:
U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney found the plaintiffs adequately alleged that UC Berkeley used an overly broad events policy to charge excessive fees and impose other unreasonable restrictions on conservative speakers. . . .
Chesney rejected claims that university officials engaged in intentional “viewpoint discrimination,” finding the same security concerns were not an issue with more liberal speaking events compared to conservative speakers.
RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet Dhillon is counsel to the plaintiffs:
“We’re very pleased that our lawsuit against UC Berkeley officials in their individual and official capacities is moving forward,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Harmeet Dhillon. “We look forward to litigating these issues.” . . .
Plaintiffs’ attorney Dhillon called the case “an example of student groups fighting back” against universities across the country suppressing conservative speech, especially schools in California.
“It’s a core constitutional right being impeded by the government, so we will move forward and vindicate their core First Amendment speech rights in court,” Dhillon said.
Free speech on campus is an important current issue that will be discussed at our National Policy Conference tomorrow.
South Texas Law Professor Josh Blackman, who was years
before head of the RNLA’s George Mason Law School Chapter, was speaking at a Federalist
Society Chapter event at City University of New York Law School when he was
protested. He details some of the
reactions on
his blog (post censored):
A student shouted out “F--k the law.” This comment stunned
me. I replied, “F--k the law? That’s a very odd thing. You are all in law
school. And it is a bizarre thing to say f--k the law when you are in law
school.”
Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Ilya
Shapiro quotes
another one of the ridiculous and self-defeating student protesters from the
protest of Professor Blackman:
My favorite was probably the juxtaposition of signs saying
“Your legal analysis is lazy and wrong” and “F-ck off”—both held by the same
person. I mean, wow. Where to begin?
As Shapiro points out about the
protest of Professor Blackman:
The latest “non-platforming” of a speaker at a purported
academic institution happened to my good friend and sometime co-author Josh
Blackman at City University of New York Law School two weeks ago, when he
attempted to give a lecture on the importance of free speech on campus.
The last part is going to be of focus of a breakout panel at RNLA’s National Policy
Conference on Friday featuring RNLA Vice President for Communications
Harmeet Dhillon and Casey Mattox of the Charles Koch Institute. The war on free speech is serious as shown
when liberals ignore the law or attack those with whom they disagree. Free speech on campus is an essential component
of a viable debate. Professor Blackman
did his best to fight this and actually finished talking to six times as many
students as he started.
“I actually want to start by using the one legal argument
you actually made.” (I deliberately paused to give them a chance to get the
laughter out of their system.) I continued, “The violence exists in the law and
it is a myth that law is inherently neutral. You said there is a myth of legal
objectivity. So let me talk about legal objectivity for a few minutes. Someone
did some excellent opposition research. Whoever did this, I applaud you. You found
seven or eight bullets on various videos I’ve given over the years. I’d like to
make a few points. You wrote, that I supported the President’s decision to
rescind DACA. Now let me tell you something. I actually support the DREAM Act.”
As Shapiro concludes:
He also showed his skill as a teacher by making an object
lesson of Obama’s Deferred Action for Child Arrivals executive orders, which
seemed to be at the heart of the student opposition. “The lesson is you can
support something as a matter of policy,” he began to explain before yet
another interruption, “but find that the law does not permit it. And then the
answer is to change the law.” . . .
Gee, it’s no surprise that so many law students struggle to
find jobs, and that was the case at CUNY even before the Great Recession. But
more broadly, it saddens me that these kinds of attitudes have infected our
public discourse. Everyone assumes the absolute worst about the other side’s
motivations and couldn’t care less about following the proper procedures for
getting what they want.
Today is International Women's Day, "a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women." Yet as we learn all too often, these neutral-sounding words really mean: a day to celebrate liberal women advancing progressive policy goals.
As 2016 RNLA National Policy Conference speaker, Network of enlightened Women President, and conservative female attorney Karin Agness Lips reminds us, Republican, conservative, and libertarian women are stereotyped, attacked, and not welcomed by modern feminists:
“If you would gather a group of leaders in the women’s empowerment movement, their definitions would vary dramatically,” Lips says. “The problem with modern-day feminism is that it lacks a universally agreed upon definition, and that it’s been co-opted by political liberals and progressives as a vehicle to pass their political agenda.”
Lips, who is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, believes in what she calls “opportunity feminism, which seeks to maximize women’s opportunities to build fulfilling and meaningful lives they want to build.” . . .
“Too often, in my experience, and for a lot of women on campus, once you speak out as a conservative, you turn in your ‘woman card‘ and you don’t count anymore,” Lips says. “[Liberals] attack conservative women, often with a vitriol expressed more for conservative women than men.” Indeed, there are those left-of-center talking heads who guard their political beliefs as viciously as some on the right.
Ms. Lips' "opportunity feminism" fits within the broader framework of conservative and libertarian values of greater individual freedom and less government regulation and is therefore better for women and everyone else as well:
She says this version of feminism prioritizes maximizing opportunities and choices for women, rather than seeing them as victims "that need every interaction regulated."
Opportunity feminism prioritizes equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, meaning that so long as women have the same opportunities as men in education, the workplace and politics, it doesn’t matter if they are represented in equal numbers.
"I'm hoping that that's going to be a way for conservative women to reclaim the feminist title," said Agness Lips. "The left claims they are the women's empowerment movement and they're not. And our policies are actually better for women."
In a world where law students disrupted Christina Hoff Sommers' Federalist Society speech at the Lewis and Clark Law School in the name of anti-fascism on Monday (the sheer ignorance of relatively recent history displayed by these supposedly educated law students--our future colleagues in the practice of law--is frightening), we are immensely grateful to have conservative and libertarian female attorneys who can provide a good example on International Women's Day. Women who can think independently, fight for good policies, and be strong leaders, supporting the rule of law, without attacking our country. RNLA women leaders like:
- Co-Chair Joanne Young
- Vice President for Communications Harmeet Kaur Dhillon
- Former Chair Kimberly Reed
- Vice President for Membership Audrey Perry Martin
- Vice President for Washington, D.C. Operations Claudia Hrvatin
- Board of Governors member Kathleen Jones Goldman
- Board of Governors member Heather Heidelbaugh
- Board of Governors member Anne Lewis
- Board of Governors member Beverly Weiss Manne
- Board of Governors member Nancy Taylor
- Arkansas Chapter Chair Bilenda Harris-Ritter
- Hawaii Chapter Chair Adrienne King
- Pennsylvania Southeastern Chapter Chair Linda Kerns
- Tennessee Chapter Chair Linda Knight
As Republican female attorneys are bombarded with messages about "equality" and progressive policy goals that women must embrace to be welcomed in the modern women's movement, remember that we conservative and libertarian women are not alone. We may not be as (obnoxiously) vocal as many highly educated liberal women, but we are capable, we are many, our ideas are better, and we are having an enormous impact on the policies and future of our country.
Today, the RNLA recognized the new officers and members of the Board of Governors elected at its recent annual board meeting:
RNLA President Elliot Berke stated: “I welcome our new and returning
board members, as well as our new and returning officers to what I expect to be
an historic year for the RNLA. It’s an
honor to serve as your President during this important time in our history.”
RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen agreed: “I am honored to work for
and with these distinguished Republican attorneys. I am especially pleased that, after having
our first female chair last year in Kimberly Reed, there are now four women
officers leading the RNLA. We look
forward to a strong year.”
Five new officers were elected for 2018. John Ryder of Memphis, Tennessee, was elected Chair. . . . Joanne
W. Young of Washington, DC, was elected Co-Chair. . . . Harmeet
K. Dhillon of San Francisco, California, was elected Vice
President for Communications. . . . Thomas
Wheeler of Indianapolis, Indiana was elected Vice President for Programming. . . . Audrey
Perry Martin of Sacramento, California was elected Vice President for Membership. . . .
Three new members of the Board of Governors were elected for 2018, joining
the 43 incumbent members of the Board of Governors.
Marc
Ellinger of Jefferson City, Missouri, . . . Linda A.
Kerns of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, . . . [and] Chris
Marston of Alexandria, Virginia . . . .
For more information about the new officers and members of the Board of Governors, please read the full press release here. The RNLA looks forward to an excellent year under these new leaders and the existing leadership they joined.
RNLA Vice President for Communications Harmeet K. Dhillon wrote today in The Daily Caller about the sexual harassment revolution that is happening now:
We live in a unique historical moment when brave women are coming forward with stories of sexual harassment they have experienced. Their courage emboldens other women to share their stories, and public sentiment is rapidly turning against the men who have harassed these women, in many cases for decades, without repercussions. This is an epochal – and overdue – cultural correction and change in thinking. It is tragic that, in a nation built on the idea that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, women were and are exploited with no recourse.
Why is this seismic shift in our culture happening now, in late 2017? According to TIME, the election of President Trump made women feel powerless, leading to the Women’s March, then to the individuals sharing their stories, culminating in the #MeToo social media movement. It turns out women were not so powerless after all. Indeed, the voices that were suppressed throughout the Clinton and Obama eras — and even while a woman, Hillary Clinton, ran a much-trumpeted historic campaign for President — now feel free, in 2017, to speak their minds, and to tell their stories. And the nation is listening, across the political spectrum. . .
In this crossroads of sociological, political, and economic theories, one explanation rises above the rest: the growing disfavor of and backlash against the Clintons. . . . By protecting Bill Clinton, and his chief defender Hillary (a self-proclaimed champion of women), for the past 20 years, the Democrats and liberal elite have perpetuated the sexual harassment culture that kept victims silent for fear of repercussions. Consider how Hillary Clinton protected friend, supporter, and donor Harvey Weinstein despite direct warnings about his misconduct toward women, as reported last week by The New York Times. . . .
It is only now that the Clintons are out of favor and inconvenient and are being shoved offstage by their ruthless cronies in the Democratic Party, that the left can actually take sexual harassment seriously. That is a good thing. But in their rush to champion the harassed women who have been silenced by the mainstream media and liberal elites for years, the left is yet again exploiting women for political gain – just as it exploited them for decades by ignoring their claims of harassment against those favored by liberal elites.
Ms. Dhillon concludes by pointing out that, in a system such as ours with the rule of law, it is anathema for a person's rights to be determined by who is in power, but that is precisely what happened for the past 20 years while the Clintons were tied to the Democratic Party and liberal elites.
