Violence Against Women?

Tuesday, February 5th, 2013 by and is filed under Blog

Share with your friends

Liberals have always held a bifurcated view of women and their need for government protection.  On the one hand, they seek to use the boot of government to obliterate every last inherent difference between the genders, even in the most physical manifestations.  On the other hand, they use big government programs to grant superfluous rights to women, as if they needed government to protect them from men.

This week, the Senate will debate reauthorization of the misleadingly named Violence Against Women Act (S.47).  All but 14 Republicans agreed to proceed with debate on the bill.  What is this ridiculous bill nicknamed VAWA?

Under our criminal justice system, states and local governments are vested with the police power to deal with crimes committed against its residents.  Those powers are just as robust, whether the crime has been committed against a man, a woman, and everything in between (except for the unborn, thanks to Roe v. Wade).  In 1994, the Clinton Administration waded into the criminal justice system by imposing a federal prosecutorial and investigative regime to combat domestic violence.  This new layer of government, housed in the Department of Justice, focused on redistributing judicial power to female victims and undermining equal protection, due process and the presumption of innocence for men – all to satisfy the cult of group victimhood.  Moreover, the billions spent on sundry social programs have shown no success in reducing incidents of domestic violence, while precluding state and local governments from dealing with the problem as reflected by the reality in their areas of jurisdiction.

The new reauthorization includes the following added perks:

  • The last reauthorization expanded the programs and protections to the elderly and children.  This one would expand “coverage” to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners.  After all, in a liberal marriage you have to have some way of identifying the husband and the wife.  Nonetheless, this will force shelters for battered women to service …well, some other individuals as well.
  • It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”
  • It expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of an Indian reservation.
  • It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic abuse.

The irony of this entire debate is that it comes on the heels of the Pentagon’s announcement that women will be placed in direct ground combat, opening the door for them to serve in the most violent jobs, including infantry and special forces.  So at the same time they pursue a gender-neutral society – one which will forever change the way women are viewed in violent situations – liberals are seeking to expand the role of the federal government in an ineffective program to protect women.

That just about sums up the enigma of modern feminism.

2 Responses to “Violence Against Women?”

  1. Rich Says:

    wow, how old are you??
    Is this 1930?
    The more I read your columns, the more I
    think your still living with your parents.
    Eating cheetos in the basement in your undies.

    Brother wake up it’s 21st century, not the 19th.

    Please get help or at least a friend.

  2. Humble1 Says:

    “It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”

    Does this mean I need to sit down with my wife and have her define all the speech that she considers illegal under this law so I won’t get locked up?

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

«

»