Conservative Women Overlooked - As Usual - On International Women's Day

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.

House Intel Memo with Concerning Omissions to FISA Court Released

Earlier today, President Trump declassified a House Intelligence Committee memorandum regarding "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation" that has been the subject of the recently trending social media hashtag #ReleasetheMemo.  Key parts of the memo include:

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle.  Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process. . . . 

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified.  As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard--protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all material and relevant facts.  This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.  In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts.  However, our findings indicate that . . . material and relevant information was omitted. 

The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. . . . Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young stated in response: “This memo contains disturbing details from both a political and a legal perspective. According to the memo, attorneys from the Department of Justice misrepresented facts to the FISA court, which is especially troubling as filings with it are classified and ex parte, so there is no opportunity to defend against the charges."

While there are many legal issues involved in the subject of the memo and it will be hotly debated in the coming weeks, one thing is certain (as noted by Dan McLaughlin of National Review):

[W]ithin those narrow confines, it does make a persuasive case – pending any detailed rebuttal by its partisan Democratic critics – that flimsily-corroborated Democratic Party campaign opposition research succeeded in influencing law enforcement to spy on a U.S. citizen involved in the political process at the height of a presidential campaign. That may not be an enormous scandal in size, but it is, if true, a scandal.

To his credit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement in response to the memo that took the actions outlined in the memo seriously and indicated that DOJ takes its responsibility to the American people seriously and will determine what happened.  

RNLA Elects New Officers and Board of Governors Members

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.

The Left's Poor History on Election Commissions

The left and their allies in the media regularly deny the existence of vote fraud and call any effort to investigate the problem “racist.”  They are even calling President’s Trump upcoming commission invalid or a waste of time. 

I guess they are at least being consistent this time and maybe even more honest.  Usually they wait until after they agree with a bipartisan commission's recommendations to start calling things racist. 

Let’s take the last national commission on voting, President Obama's Presidential Commission on Election Administration.  This commission was led by Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg and President Obama’s campaign lawyer Bob Bauer.  As RNLA Board Member Joanne Young addresses in her article entitled: “Why Trump’s Call to Investigate Vote Fraud Is Valid:”

The irony was that at the same time Obama’s lawyer, Bob Bauer, was leading the bipartisan commission, his own firm was suing the state of Virginia, calling the efforts to clean up voter rolls racist and purging.

It goes further. Obama nominated Myrna Perez to be on the Election Assistance Commission. Perez was an adamant opponent of voter list maintenance, declaring such efforts “purging.”

This is why it’s tough to even talk about vote fraud. Any efforts, even those with bipartisan support, are bitterly opposed by liberal activists.  It also happen to the voting commission before that:

A primary recommendation of the 2005 bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform (the “Carter-Baker Commission”) was to require voter ID. This commission was led by Jimmy Carter, former president and noted liberal, and James Baker, secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush.

Yet, liberals oppose any efforts to enact commonsense voter ID laws, opposing them in legislatures and in the courts. Voter ID laws, which protect the integrity of the vote and thus our democracy for all citizens, are called racist and mechanisms of voter suppression.

Republicans are dedicated to improving our election process and President Trump deserves credit for the commission on vote fraud.  Democrats will likely object to the commission even if the Democrat members of the commission agree.  Hopefully the Trump Commission's recommendations will be taken seriously regardless of the reaction of those on the left who always disagree.  

The Left Continues to Resist Efforts to Fight Voter Fraud

Today, Joanne Young published an op-ed on the homepage of National Review Online. Here's an excerpt:

Inaccurate voter rolls also exponentially increase the potential for fraud. Did you hear the one about the deceased World War II veterans who just registered to vote? How about the one where 40 days before the election, a thousand noncitizens were found on the voter rolls in Virginia? Or the dead dozen who cast their ballots in Colorado? 

With disasters like these, it’s no wonder that citizens are eager to monitor our monitors. Our request: Do your job. Under federal law, election officials must keep voter rolls up to date.

If you have five minutes, make sure to read the full article.

Disenfranchisement of New Voters in Oregon Primary Benefits Clinton over Sanders

Yesterday, Joanne W. Young published a piece at the Daily Caller that further illustrates the dangers associated with mandatory voter registration. Oregon, a bastion for most things liberal, attempted to force mandatory registration through the DMV. This drew more than a few warnings from Young earlier this year. It turns out the initial concerns were well founded as new voters are likely being disenfranchised as a result of the system.

Oregon was the first state to enact a system of automatic or mandatory voter registration. At the beginning of 2016, Oregon began mandatorily registering its citizens to vote when they visited the Department of Motor Vehicles, changing from an “opt-in” to an “opt-out” registration system. Liberals hailed this as a leap forward in making voting easier for everyone and encouraging broader engagement by citizens in our democracy.

Mandatory voter registration is a new experiment in the United States, and there is no proof it will meet its intended goals. Indeed, there is evidence from other countries, such as Canada, that have had systems of mandatory voter registration for years that, instead of increasing voter engagement and turnout, it actually decreases it . . . .

The issue will undoubtedly effect many voters in the Oregon primary today as those who are not declared for a party will be unable to vote given the state’s primary rules.

Oregon is a closed primary state, meaning that only those voters registered with a political party may vote in that party’s primary. The government cannot choose a party for a person, so by default, all new voters registered through the mandatory voter registration system areregistered as non-affiliated voters. To be registered with a party, new voters, who did not take the initiative to register to vote, must take the initiative to proactively indicate a party on a follow-up postcard they mail back to the Secretary of State.

In what should come as a surprise to very few, many of those who were mandatorily registered failed to return the postcard and as a consequence will be unable to vote in the primary.

At the end of April, only 16 percent of new voters had returned the postcard selecting a party. Fully76 percent of newly registered voters did not return the card at all, meaning they are registered to vote but registered as not affiliated with any party. The Oregon presidential primary is May 17, and the deadline for registering with a party was April 26 . . . . 

Further complicating matters, Oregon is an entirely vote-by-mail state, meaning that those non-affiliated voters have not even received a ballot and may not realize they are being disenfranchised.

The mandatory voter registration process in Oregon has been a glaring failure on many levels. It has achieved only the exact opposite of what it was advertised to do. Other countries have shown its impact to be at best negligible, and more than likely detrimental. 

The recent voter disenfranchisement in Oregon simply adds to a growing list of questionable policies emanating from the left. Young goes on to discuss who the situation does likely help; none other than the Democratic “establishment candidate,” Hillary Clinton. While I personally loathe Sanders ideals and general platform, it is hard to look at the integrity of this election from his perspective and not cringe. Step by step, state by state, super delegate by super delegate, the establishment is stealing the Democratic nomination away from him. Elections should have integrity. As Joanne Young pointed out regarding the New Hampshire primary in February, elections should always be right and just, not stolen.