Here Is How The Defeat Of Hillary Clinton Led To The Sexual Harassment Revolution

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.

While liberals and the mainstream media attribute the timing to President Trump's election, Ms. Dhillon instead points to the disfavor of the Clintons:

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.  

Why Did Former AG Lynch Use an Email Alias at the DOJ?

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about the recent revelations about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's use of an email alias account at the Department of Justice:

Compare this with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her tumultuous tenure. Lynch did not recuse herself from the investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private email server that handled classified information.  Like her predecessor, Eric Holder, Lynch set up an alias DOJ email account under the name Elizabeth Carlisle to handle official business. 

She secretly met with Bill Clinton at a crucial moment in the investigation.  When a reporter discovered the clandestine meeting, the Lynch DOJ went into crisis mode — strategizing, preparing talking points, and working with the mainstream media to bury the story.  Lynch was involved in the response effort, but under her “Elizabeth Carlisle” alias. 

Why set up an alias email account?  The official version is the alias account avoided people guessing the Attorney General’s email address and flooding her inbox.  It is common practice for CEOs and other high profile leaders to have an email address that does not fit the organization’s customary formula. . . . What is not common practice is to use an entirely different name altogether.  Why would Lynch, and Holder before her, adopt such a strange practice?  One reason might be to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  A person would request the Attorney General’s correspondence on a certain topic, but because the Attorney General had used her alias account, none of her emails would show up on a search for emails sent to or from Loretta Lynch.  As the email alias was unknown until last week, the Attorney General’s emails on sensitive subjects were largely kept from public release under FOIA.

This would be entirely in conformity with the Obama Administration’s practice of avoiding transparency whenever possible, despite claiming to be the “most transparent administration in history.”  Last July, the American Center for Law and Justice filed a FOIA request for documents relating to the Lynch-Clinton airplane meeting and the Obama FBI responded that no responsive documents existed.  After a lawsuit, over 400 pages of responsive documents were produced last week.  This is just one example of the Obama DOJ’s lack of transparency.

Mr. Thielen compared Lynch's actions with Attorney General Jeff Sessions' ethical behavior in recusing himself from the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election to avoid even an appearance of impropriety.  The Trump Department of Justice has important work to do to restore a culture of ethics, responsibility, and respect for the rule of law in the law firm for the American people.

Did Bill Clinton Call on Illegal Aliens to Commit Vote Fraud?

Bill Clinton's speech was a little discussed point at the DNC last week and he garnered more attention for falling asleep during Secretary Clinton's big moment than most anything he addressed.  What many missed is his call for illegal aliens to vote for Hillary in November.  Trump has been lambasted by the liberal media all week for stating that he believes this election will be rigged. Yet his opponent’s former President-husband asking all illegals to commit vote fraud, can you really blame him? (emphasis in the original)

Speaking directly to illegal aliens, Clinton stated to an applauding audience of delegates that “if you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes and you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over somebody that wants to send you back.” Unfortunately for Bill, illegal aliens (and non-citizens in general) aren’t supposed to be ‘choosing’ anyone. Like in every other country in the world, here in America only citizens are supposed to vote.

Despite its unprecedented foreign-born population (currently over 40 million), the US protects against illegal voter-registration by relying on an attestation system. Under federal law, provided one can show a driver’s license or social security number, all a non-citizen need to do if they really want to vote is check a box “confirming” they’re an eligible voter. In other words, it’s an honor system. This isn’t common in other arguably less important areas. Under legislation (oddly enough) signed by Bill Clinton, protective measures were put in place to ensure illegal aliens couldn’t apply for federal benefits. Rather than putting trust in the applicants themselves, the so-called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program was installed to help federal agencies confirm the immigration-status of all benefit-seeking applicants (illegal aliens, who by definition have no immigration records, cannot be identified on the system and are therefore blocked from receiving benefits). Despite the fact that an illegal vote casted is a citizen-vote cancelled, similar defensive measures are apparently not seen as warranted in the area of voting.

On both the state and federal levels, incentives for illegal alien-voting abound. State bills offering in-state tuition, driver’s and professional licenses, illegal alien-“sanctuary”, etc. are currently being debated in various parts of the country. For those illegal aliens who fall within President Obama’s blanket grants of deferred action (2 million for the renewable 2012 DACA program and 5 million for the currently frozen DAPA program), their incentives are obvious. With regards to DACA-recipients, they also have a newfound ability to register and vote due to their eligibility for federal identification documents, including driver’s licenses and SSNs. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of FY2014, 541,000 DACA-recipients had been allotted SSNs. Immediately after the 2014 DAPA amnesty was announced, Sen. Rob Portman of the swing-state of Ohio sent a letter to the president chastising his action for “afford[ing] potentially thousands of non-citizens in Ohio the opportunity to willfully or negligently register to vote and to vote” and for making voter protection in his state “significantly more difficult.”

Common sense election reforms are being rolled back to ensure that fraud will thrive. The RNLA issued a press release yesterday discussing the attacks on Trump for questioning the process.  For anyone paying attention to the unethical and deceitful actions of the Clintons over their careers, it makes sense to pay really close attention. How can a former President encourage vote fraud?