RNC Silence over “Women of the 99%” Illegal Robo-Calls Deafening

by lewwaters

It has long been said that the Republican Party has an uncanny knack of snatching defeat out of a victory. And they continue to prove it!

The left has launched an all out attack against conservative America, feigning moral outrage over any and everything they can muster. A usual tactic of the left, being met by the usual silence and spineless response from RNC leadership.

After years of debasing derogatory comments against conservative women, we have all seen the feigned outrage over Rush Limbaugh labeling a left wing activist a “slut” and immediately labeled as the “de facto leader” of the Republican Party. Silence from the GOP.

Emails have flown into my inbox from the likes of Guy Cecil, Executive Director DSCC making the false allegation, “While Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans wage a war on women, yadda, yadda, yadda…”

From Robby Mook, DCCC Executive Director I received, “From their all-male panel on birth control coverage to their refusal to denounce Rush Limbaugh’s vile attacks, blah, blah, blah…”

From a Kelly Ward, DCCC Political Director was received, “Republicans aren’t backing down from their War on Women crusade.”

Rep. Diana DeGette, Co-Chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus sent, “Our goal is to expose the truth about Republicans’ war on women….”

Sen. Patty Murray sent, “The GOP’s war on women has reached the danger zone,” and “If Republicans win, women won’t get the care they need, and women will die. Period.”

Jennifer Crider, DCCC Deputy Executive Director sent, “Enough is enough! The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.”

Also received from Guy Cecil, “Today we’re seeing another stunning GOP attack on women’s rights,” and “These attacks never seem to end, and it’s jaw-dropping.”

Received today from Robby Mook, “Republicans reached a whole new level of low this week in their War on Women…”

During this time, received from the RNC was reports of “Schools can choose ‘pink slime’ or not,” and a single email from GOPUSA informing the reader that celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred wanted Rush prosecuted.

And now, continuing in their spineless wonder, we read in the UK Daily Mail, Voters targeted with illegal robocalls linking Republican politicians to Rush Limbaugh’s ‘slut’ gaffe informing us of an unregistered shadow group labeling themselves “The Women of the 99%” launching a series of robocalls in at least “25 Congressional districts in 12 different states” across the U.S. targeted by Democrats as “Red to Blue.”

We read, “The automated calls are illegal because they do not state who they are from (there is no known group called The Women of the 99 Percent) or provide a callback number, as required under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.”

Gateway Pundit goes further with GOP Officials Remain Silent After Dem Group Is Caught Running Largest Political Robocall Scandal in History informing us, “It’s now been over a week since a shady liberal group (they don’t even have a website) calling themselves the “Women of the 99%” made tens of thousands of illegal robocalls across the US attacking Rush Limbaugh and Republican lawmakers in battleground districts. Republican leaders have yet to release a statement on the scandal.”

We are further told this group is “not a registered PAC or lobbying group. Therefore, it is illegal for this group to make robocalls. The group is making the calls anonymously – which also is illegal.”

Where is the GOP Leadership? Why are they remaining silent while such egregious violations of campaign and other laws are carried out by Democrats and their shadow groups?

We hear no outrage over the blatant lies of this “war on women” from RNC Leaders or elected officials. We hear no challenges of Rush being the “de facto leader” of Republicans.

The RNC remains as spineless as ever under moderates. Democrats are slashing at the throats of Middle America while Republicans continue “being nice.”

It isn’t enough for bloggers to spread the word; we need some leaders with a pair. We need some spine at the top. We know the American media will not favor the GOP or even report such leftist violations fairly, if they report them at all.

Republicans, pulling the covers over your heads an going back to sleep will only give us 4 more years of Obama and return the House to Democrats while strengthening the Democrat majority in the Senate. They are in this to win and remake our great country into what it was never intended to be.

GOP Leaders, stand up or get the hell out of the way.

27 Comments to “RNC Silence over “Women of the 99%” Illegal Robo-Calls Deafening”

  1. Fortunately the women of America aren’t stupid enough to get sucked in by the Democrat Party’s BS. The phony “war on women” has been pretty well ignored by both Republicans and Democrats. It was over with almost before it started, except of course to the most extreme fanatics and loonies. Rush Limbaugh is doing fine, Btw.

    Like

  2. Nothing has changed much. I was very involved with the GOP in the late ’80s and ’90s. I attended the 1992 national convention in Huston as a delegate for Bush. Conservatives were constantly obstructed by the top-down-structure of the WSRP and the NRC. The went so far as to assign watch dogs from the NRC to run interference between conservative delegates and the press on the floor of the convention to keep the ‘Christian-Right’ from being an embarrassment to the GOP.

    All levels, GOP leadership were afraid of saying anything that sounded conservative because the media would use it to label the GOP as right-wing extremists–as if the media weren’t already doing that anyway. The Establishment Republicans have always wanted to viewed in a favorable light by the media and that foolishness prevents them from wanting to defend true conservative values or polices.

    Karl Marx said that when your opponents will not challenge your for fear of ridicule—you have already won the contest. The GOP leadership has been proving ol’ Karl right on that point for decades.

    After the Dole fiasco in ’96 and the GOP’s mistreatment of Pat Buchannan I had had enough and just walked away from the GOP. I spent some time looking at Third-party options but soon saw that the deck is too stacked in favor of the two-party standard.

    The emergence of the Tea-party movement has given me new hope that the time is finally come to replace Establishment Republicans with true conservative leadership and has encouraged me to get back in the game. So I am hoping the best is yet to come. We shall see.

    Like

  3. That is my effort, Stephen. If you note, I called my blog “Conservative,” not “Republican.”

    I give the GOP no support and lend my support to individual conservative candidates of my choosing.

    The Tea Party did pretty good, except on the West Coast where it was weakened by establishment Republicans who somewhat took it over to promote establishment candidates.

    Believe me, I got an earful and eyeful in the 2010 elections of what goes on in the background that led me to sever my relation with the GOP.

    Like

  4. Hey, Steve, welcome back! Great to hear your voice again (so to speak)!

    I think our speaking out is not ultimately about “winning.” If that happens, great. But regardless of that, somebody has to be a prophetic voice in the gates of the city. Somebody has to speak the truth in love as best they can. It’s the right thing to do.

    I’m so glad you’re back in the game. This makes my day.

    (And the Gospel is clear on this: The best is *definitely* yet to come!)

    Like

  5. I’m a Liberal Democrat but I’m sincerely interested in the other side’s goals. I’ve listed what it seems to me are “Conservative Values.” Is someone willing to discuss these?

    Foreign Policy: Pre-emptive action, spread democracy

    Law & Order: strict enforcement, punishment

    Government: anti-tax, anti-regulation, personal accountability (limited social safety-net), guns (empowerment), liberty (Capitalism)

    Social: religious writings

    Like

  6. You did a fair job of making it appear we are chiseled in stone cavemen, Martin. But, it’s not as accurate as you indicate.

    Foreign Policy: If you know you are to be attacked, why wait and only defend? That doesn’t mean willy nilly attacks, but having solid intelligence of a pending attack. Supporting those seeking freedom and liberty from tyrannical leaders is wrong how? Do you forget the words of John F. Kennedy?

    Law & Order: If you don’t enforce a law, why have it? Are we really a nation of laws if we get to pick and choose which ones we each follow? There is always leeway for extenuating circumstances. As an attorney, surely you know that. Punishment in some cases, repayment in others. Rehabilitation if warranted, but by and large rehabilitation as shown itself fruitless in many criminal cases.

    Government: Anti-Tax? No. Advocates for a reasonable tax rate? Yes. Anti-regulation? No. Advocates for reasonable regulation, yes. Gun ownership is fundamental right granted to us by our founders and set forth in the second amendment. With that comes proper usage of our gun rights, education on safety and proper handling and loss of the right under certain circumstances. Liberty? You betcha.

    Social: I think most prefer that we keep religion in the churches. However, denial of religion in the public square, while allowing another oppressive religion to grow in the public square is not exactly fair, is it? In the case of evolution vs creation, neither can be proven, so why is only one promoted? Why is the religion of secular humanism promoted while Christianity & Judaism is not? Does that not go against “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”

    No body is forced to accept Christianity or Judaism, but heavy indoctrination of the religion of secular humanism does appear to be.

    Apparently unbeknownst to many liberals, we are the ones who are really about “choice.”

    Like

  7. Liberals wear glasses that make everything look in reverse as to what it actually is. They’re programmed that way at the mind-numbed robot factory.

    Like

  8. Thank you, Lew, for you answer. I’m honestly trying to see what you see. Is it the fact that I use only 1 or 2 words to describe an issue that makes you think they’re biased? What would be your 1 or 2 words?

    Like

  9. Martin, if you weren’t trying to chisel us into a certain position, my apologies.

    If I had to limit my position into one or two words, perhaps reasonable and balanced would do.

    Like

  10. It’s interesting that a discussion of this type is so difficult? I tried it in a Socialist forum I contribute to with similar suspicions. (You answered much more honestly, Lew.) As an engineer, I’m used to making lists before solving problems. How can we communicate if we can’t come to an agreement of what the words mean?

    Answers are easy – it’s the questions that are hard.

    Like

  11. Blame multiculturalism, Martin 😉

    Seriously, English has many words with multitiple meanings, so it does make communicating difficult at times.

    That difficulty can be overcome, but along with the art of asking comes listening too.

    We conservatives have been left feeling we are not listened to, by Democrats or Republicans. That is why many of us are dissatisfied with the candidates again and consider ourselves Independents rather than Republicans.

    Like

  12. I just Googled “secular humanism” and that pretty much describes me! That’s the closest thing to liberty-based choice that I’ve ever read. How is that bad? And how does it qualify as a religion? (Sincere questions.)

    Like

  13. Hi Martin,

    Reading a google entry on human secularism is not same as reading the Humanist Manifesto. If you have not done so I would encourage you to before you align yourself too strongly with that religion.

    Humanism has been declared to be a religion by the Supreme Court of The United States. As best my memory serves me, the Court stated that any system of thought which attempts to alter or replace a religion is itself a religion. The mission statement as announced in the Humanist Manifesto is to do just that. ( I am currently out of state and do not have access to my library resources to cite that case right now . If you are interested in it I will be home the first week of April and can provide it for you then.)

    The late Washington State Supreme Court Justice William C. Goodloe opined (not in a legal opinion) that there are only two religions in the world—Theism and Humanism. My studies of religion and philosophy have convinced me that he was right.

    Like

  14. Thanks for the heads-up Stephen. I read the Wiki article on “secular humanism” and it pretty much covered all the historical and legal bases. You’re right, I don’t want to be associated with all that. Let’s just say I’m one of those without the “religion” part.

    As outlined in that article, “religious humanism” (or whatever) is trying to make a mockery of real religion, which is entirely NOT anything I approve of. My mom is very religious, and I would never say anything negative towards her beliefs, they mean a lot to her, and I love my mom.

    Like

  15. Hi again Martin,

    I would like to take up your offer to discuss the conservative values you mentioned but to so effectively would be beyond what I am able to do this week. (As I said earlier, I am out of state right now.) In the meantime I would offer my thumbnail view of Conservatism now and reserve the details for later.

    I would start by pointing out that ‘conservative’ should not be taken to mean preserving the status quo. Rather, Conservatism begins with the recognition that Western Civilization is founded upon principles and ideas which have been developed by Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman thought and practice though out the millennia. It is those First Principles which our Founding Fathers were guided by and which they relied upon in the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. The object of Conservatism, then is to identify and preserve those First Principles for the guidance that they may provide in the resolution of problems encountered in contemporary life, society, culture economics and government.

    It whatever form or manner those First Principles are being relied upon to inform and guide our decisions today, the conservative desire is to preserve the status quo. Wherever those First Principles are being ignored or have been forgotten, lost, or replaced by less worthy ideas, the conservative seeks change. It is a return to the knowledge and understanding of those First Principles, and through their application, that conservatives hope to improve the quality of life and lead humanity toward its greatest potential.

    It was the pursuit of those principles which made this county great and it is the continued pursuit of those principles which will lead it to be greater yet. Because the forward movement of humankind and improvement in quality of life necessarily require change—Conservatism is itself a vehicle for change—not stagnation.

    I would like to discuss the specific issues you inquired about at another time and in greater detail. Until then, enough for now.

    Like

  16. Conservatism strives to preserve the heart and culture of America – Liberalism strives to tear this nation apart and destroy it’s heart and culture.

    It’s just that simple.

    Like

  17. That’s all very interesting philosophy, Stephen, but there are other philosophies I like better, specifically John Locke’s, the philosopher the U.S. Constituion is based on. In fact, the words “Life, Liberty, and Property” are his words. But even John Locke believed in a lot of things I do not. Luckily, other people had input into the U.S. Constitution, and it’s the final arbitrator of the rules. In fact, it’s the ONLY rules we ALL must abide by. Everything else is morals and ethics, and though I have personally agreed to 4 sets of eithical rules (attorney, accountant, engineer, medical doctor), ethics are only for professional organizations, and morals are for churches.

    Like

  18. Hi Martin,

    Glad you like John Locke. I am sure you know that Locke and his philosophy was both a product of, and in his time, a contributor to, that larger body of Western Civilization thinkers that both preceded and followed him, respectively. However, as you said, the Constitution was not based on any single person or philosopher–The Founding Fathers drew upon their vast knowledge of the thoughts, writings and teachings of many, (not the least of which was the Holy Scriptures) the list being too long to include here.

    When you say that the Constitution is the only the ONLY rules we must all abide by, I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you mean the only rules that we are legally bound by. For many persons, conscience places stronger bounds on them than the laws of man. Were that not true then it is unlikely that Patrick Henry would have said, “.. give me Liberty or give me death.”

    Codes of ethics are primarily derived from standards of morality which have been codified to provide specificity to a particular group of persons. Nonetheless, you are correct that morals are for churches. That is if you mean that the teaching and promoting of morals lies within the domain of the church as opposed to the state. On that we can agree. (‘Church’ is used here to represent not any particular form or brand of religion, but that which informs and guides the individual conscience, whatever that might be.)

    From that point of view then, it can be said the separation of church and state would be that which delineates what the state can compel us to do from that which the church should persuade us to do. Would you agree with me on that?

    PS. I am concerned that we may be drifting off the topic of Lew’s post here and I do not want to wear out my welcome by abusing his blog. Do you know of some other forum where we might continue this line of discussion?

    Like

  19. Martin,

    I posted that last comment in the early AM after a confusing day and failed to be as articulate as I could have been. I apologize for that.

    What’s worse, I neglected to clarify a confusion about the control of rule by the Constitution. You said that the Constitution is the ONLY rules that we must abide by. If by “we” you mean, we the people in our role of government (we the government) then of course you are right. However, if you mean “we” as citizens then you are 180 degrees wrong.

    The Constitution provides the rules which government, its agencies, and agents must abide by. It says nothing about the rules citizens are bound by. Just wanted to clear that up.

    Like

  20. Stephen, we as citizens are ruled by State Law, which derives from Federal Law. Federal Laws are adopted by each State individually, and if a State chooses not to adopt any particular law, the National Guard is called in (Civil Rights). When I say “we” I mean we (and so does the Supreme Court).

    Like

  21. Stephen, I have started a topic on my forum to continue this discussion at: http://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=634

    You’ll need to register, then let me allow you to post. (The draconian measures are recent due to a massive upswing in spam.)My email is martin@hash.com, and we’ll probably need to exchange a few emails until the forum posting is worked out.

    Like

  22. Martin,

    We, as citizens are ruled by both State and Federal law which are separate and distinct bodies of law. State law does not derive from Federal law. (See Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution ).

    States do not adopt Federal law. The States simply abide by Federal law or they may challenge the constitutionality of the Federal law, as is being done currently with regard to Obama-Care.

    State law, as well city and county ordnances, are governed by the United States Constitution and subject to the same restrictions the United States Constitution places upon the Federal government (see the Fourteenth Tenth Amendment) as well as being subject to the individual State Constitution under which those State and local laws are enacted.

    Sorry, Martin, but you lost me with the “we” part relative to the Supreme Court

    Like

  23. People tend to forget that the states are “separate entity-members” of the union and the states are entitled to forge their own direction from the union. People also tend to “forget” that the citizen is “king” and the state is supposed to be a “servant”.

    Government has destroyed the original intent of the founders and it will take a bloody Revolution to straighten it all out. I see one coming in the future. So does the government.

    Like

  24. Jack,

    I think you are right Jack, but I would characterize it a little differently. I don’t see government as having done the destroying. I see apathy and lack of vigilance by the citizenry as having allowed self-serving politicians and their backers to usurp the powers vested in them and to reverse the Master/Servant relationship you mentioned.

    The challenge is to put the flow of power back in proper order without the need for a real revolution. I think that can be accomplished if we can maintain integrity of the voting system. But that is not a sure thing by any means. If you have been following the various pieces of “election reform” legislation being push in Olympia then you know what I mean.

    It is getting easier to engage in election fraud and proportionally more difficult to ensure fair and honest results at the ballot box. My fear is that when large numbers of the population are sufficiently angered by the abuse of power by government, and, no longer trust the power to vote as a means of controlling their “servants” then they will resort to other means.

    We can stop that from happening if we can re-secure the integrity of the election system. I hope.

    Like

  25. My goodness, guys, which of you are lawyers? Here’s the “Idiot’s Guide” explanation:

    “A state typically adopts federal rules in some manner. Adopting the federal program means either incorporating federal rules into the state’s rules, or creating and adopting state rules that are equivalent to federal rules. Many states simply incorporate the federal rules by reference (this is known as “incorporation by reference.”) This is when regulatory language in a state’s regulations actually cites, or refers to, the federal regulations. A state may also choose to create an analogous set of state regulations through the state legislative process.”

    Washington state even has a special term for this that they do at the beginning of every session. (I wish I could remember it?)

    There was a lot of separation between federal and state at the founding of this country. It was called “federalism” but now “federalism” means exactly the opposite! “States Rights” don’t mean much now. I don’t know how I feel about that?

    Like

  26. Martin, you being a lawyer means that you easily get hopelessly tangled up in minutiae and soon sink totally from view. I, on the other hand, like to express my views as simply as possible to avoid that sort of sticky “abyss”.

    Simply put:

    A. “The government nowadays has gone totally out of control”.

    B. “The only thing that will bring government back under control is a bloody Revolution”.

    C. “Boom boom, bang bang, and all that”.

    Like

  27. Jack, that’s what the 2nd Amendment is all about… It’s not like we haven’t been through this before – Civil War and all that.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: