The Democrats in Washington are trying to shove the renewal of a bad law down our throats again. The Democrats see it as a chance to do politics as usual in Washington. A few Republicans are starting to stand up to this really bad law.
What is it?
It is a monstrosity called the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA was originally passed during the Clinton Administration and has been periodically up for renewal since then. This is one of those years.
The Democrats and their allies in the drive-by media love to set the stage for this horrible bill. They love to shout Republicans support beating women and violence against women.
VAWA has been a sop to feminists and simply bad law.
Under VAWA, money is made available to the states if they do what the Feds want. What the Feds want is mandatory arrest policies, overuse of restraining orders and the funding of feminist infrastructure.
I have seen VAWA first hand. When VAWA was first enacted, I was working as a prosecutor. During the existence of VAWA, I have worked as both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. VAWA created a new bureaucracy of “domestic violence advocates.”
Under VAWA, mandatory arrest policies were created. There is no proof that these policies do anything to stop domestic violence, but the Feds know best. Prior to VAWA, domestic violence was prosecuted. But many times, police officers would respond to a domestic violence call and decide there was nothing going on and tell the people, “If we have to come back here tonight, someone is going to jail.” Now with VAWA, the police operate on the belief that if they go to a domestic call, someone MUST go to jail.
VAWA pressured the states to create “Protective Orders.” If someone claims they are a victim of domestic violence, they can go get a restraining order. First, the alleged victim can get what is called an “ex-parte” order. That means the person who the restraining order is sought against, is not notified until after the order is in effect. Ex-parte orders can direct that someone vacate their home with no notice and no time to collect belongings. They can award child custody without a hearing. It can award child support and alimony without a hearing. They strip someone of their Second Amendment Rights, again without a hearing.
One judge I know calls Orders of Protection, as they are known in Tennessee, “a poor man’s divorce.” He calls them that because if a woman goes and gets one, the divorce is basically decided at that point and the man will have little chance to have any of it reversed.
Think about it for a moment. You’re a man who comes home from work one day and you’ve lost your home, your kids and everything based on an accusation with no proof.
If you ask almost any lawyer in either the criminal justice system or the domestic or family courts, they will tell you these orders are the most abused procedure in the justice system.
Tacitus said, “the more corrupt the society, the more laws it has.” This is very true with VAWA. Perhaps the worst part of it is for the people, mostly men, who are arrested as a result of this law.
Often they will not have the resources to try and defend themselves. The punishment that is often imposed is anger management or as some jurisdictions use the politically correct term, “Batterer’s intervention programs.” The men accused must endure what amounts to political indoctrination that can last up to a year. They are forced to pay for these classes so they will not go to jail.
All of that aside, there is no proof VAWA works. All it does is create a new class of criminals. These are mostly men, though sometimes women, who twenty years ago would have never been arrested.
Instead, thanks to VAWA, more men and women are forced through the system so it can perpetuate itself.
VAWA is an expensive failure and should be allowed to expire. The Republicans should counter the Democrats’ mantra about battered women with the stories of men and women whose lives have been ruined as a result of the misuse of the legal process under VAWA.
The Republicans should do this. Given the lack of political courage the Republicans show, they probably won’t.
They should fight to end the phenomenal waste of money that is VAWA.
Unfortunately, they probably won’t.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on An alternative view is expressed here:
Ann Barnhardt's take on this.
Let me break it down for Ed Morrissey, and all of the other pundits in that social circle so that you can get your heads around this. We are concerned and even, dare I say it, panicked, because we can see the big picture of the Obama regime for what it is. We can take the totality of the dataset and draw not just a logical, reasoned conclusion, but a conclusion that is supported by centuries - nay millenia - of past precedent. We are, as Patrick Henry put it, "willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
Why is the 3/16/2012 Executive Order worthy of grave concern? Simply put, because of the man and the regime who issued it. This is a man, and a regime that has done the following:
-Sent the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) to Congress to put them on notice that despite the explicitness of the Constitution, the consent of the Congress to wage war will neither be solicited nor required by the Commander in Chief or his regime. The CiC and SECDEF may, if they feel like it and can find the time, MAY inform the Congress of "kinetic military actions" henceforth.
-Declared the First Amendment null and void by mandating that every American must, as a condition of legal residency in the United States, pay for abortions. Mr. Morrissey, being a Catholic, you should understand that what the Obama regime has done is demand your very soul. In order to remain corporeally "free" in the United States of America, you must enter into mortal sin, reject Jesus Christ in totality, turn your back on your Crucified Savior, excommunicate yourself from the Church, and consign your immortal soul to eternal hell. If that isn't the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion, then nothing is or ever could be.
-Committed acts of war upon the sovereign nation of Mexico and her people, willfully arming narco-terrorists with the intent of using the optics of hundreds if not thousands of brutally murdered Mexicans in order to stir up and justify the overthrow of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is textbook sedition.
-Has coordinated with regime cronies in the Legislative Branch to enable the Obama regime to operate for an entire term WITH NO BUDGET WHATSOEVER. In this time, the Obama regime has looted the United States Treasury and debased the currency of the United States to the tune of SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS, or roughly one-half the gross domestic product.
This is just a very, very, very short list. Additionally, with each passing day it is being further revealed that EVERY SINGLE PERSON Barack Obama has ever associated with has been not merely a Marxist, not merely a Socialist, not merely a Communist, but a TOTALITARIAN hellbent on the destruction of the United States of America.
I'll concede the point that if this Executive Order was issued by - get this - Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton, I could buy the idea that it was merely an emergency protocol housekeeping item of some sort geared toward the reaction of the Federal Government after a nuclear attack. I'd be skeptical, but I would be open to the argument.
Not so now. These people are totalitarian tyrants who are no longer even trying to hide their intentions. See the bulleted items above. There comes a point where you have to pull your head out of the sand, synthesize a massive dataset into its obvious, coherent output, and be willing to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Denying the obvious, even when the obvious is horrific, is not some sort of virtue. Keeping people numb to reality and drunk on a sugary treacle of distraction and reassurance that "everything's okay" even when every iota of data and experience tells us that everything is NOT OKAY is not a virtuous public service. It is a massive failure in charity, both towards those who are misled and falsely-consoled by your assurances, and toward those whose intellects and intentions you backhandedly insult.
Remember, people exactly like Ed Morrissey and his ilk were calling everyone warning of Hitler's danger to mankind "alarmist", "conspiracy theorists" and "paranoid" up until 4:40 am on September 1, 1939 when the Luftwaffe attacked Weilun. And before that mess was over, 70 million human beings were dead. The hell that the Obama regime is determined to unleash on the world will make World War II look like a mere bar fight.
Yeah, I'm sorry I can't tell you the day, hour and minute that open war is going to break out, both overseas and here in the homeland, or the exact date, time and high-tick in the markets before the entire system implodes. There is a name for people who claim to know exact dates of future events - they're called CHARLATANS. If that failure makes me non-credible and paranoid, then I wear that sash with pride, and am consoled and flattered by the caliber of the company of Jeremiahs and Cassandras throughout history that I join. But I do know that it is coming, and that the NDRP Executive Order of 3/16/2012 is, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DAY AND THE REGIME THAT ISSUED IT, entirely ominous and certainly tactical.
I'll leave you with the video of Larry Grathwohl, which can never, ever be posted, spread and publicized too much. Recorded in 1980, when Barack Obama was nothing more than a drug-addled foreign student at Occidental College and not yet even a glimmer in the eye of the Totalitarians who would later adopt him as their public persona, Grathwohl recounts conversations led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the founders and leaders of the Weather Underground, the Marxist-Communist-Totalitarian terrorist group that Grathwohl was tasked to infiltrate, and the eventual intimates, ghostwriter and political handlers of Barack and Michelle Obama. The Totalitarian cabal that runs the Obama regime has intended, for decades, to collapse the United States, overthrow it, establish a Totalitarian oligarchy, and as a necessary corollary to that, murder at least ten percent of the population as "die-hard, unreformable capitalists." In 1980, that 10% worked out to 25 million human beings. Today, it would be 31 million - but heck, what's another Holocaust (6 million) give or take?
Today, you are either Churchill or you are Chamberlain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ&feature=player_embedded
JCPatriot; I am standing and applauding you right now. Very well stated and relevant.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Thanks, but applaud Ann Barnhardt. If I had written it, it would be more like "stupid is as stupid does."
JC,
I read every word and agree with them all. What I was looking at was people both scared and outraged - but mostly scared - and possibly energized enough to do something foolish that could easily trigger the conditions for the EO to be called into effect. The left has been systematically doing everything it can to goad us (OWS, Frances Fox Piven and now this) into firing the first shot - literally. I think it is not in our interest to do that at this time.
I have to believe that there are people trained in the military arts etc who are as aware as we are of the delicate nature of our situation and are planning for whatever happens. At this point I'm willing to ride on that belief rther than go off half-cocked with no real plan.
So I wasn't minimizing the import of the EO, just trying to slow thngs down a bit.
Permalink Reply by Rob on First we have to find a politician that has some balls that will not allow this to continue. And from what I have seen non of them have any.
As an example I called my Senator and asked what can be done since harry ried decided not to create a budget and was told nothing can be done. SO if that can happen what can we do about any of this with the exception of voting them out.
And even though we vote in so called good people they change and we get screwed once again.
I feel we should protest in their offices and tell them to just resign.
Permalink Reply by Richard Rostron on VAWA is an constitutional end run. If you go back to the '80s, you may recall the news stories about women who couldn't get the courts to protect them and were then killed by their estranged husbands. While there were certainly instances when this occurred, the media took it on as one of its causes for promotion working with those who sought what came to be known as VAWA laws. The problem, other than the mere lack of constitutionality, is that the application of the law is heavily abused. Women know that it's advantageous in a pending divorce to file such a charge. I've heard that the organization that works to defend abused women in my area - Turning Point - which also has an office down the hall from the courtrooms on the divorce floor at the county government building, regularly encourages women to take advantage of the law. As it's been told to me, this encouragement may well come with or without any basis in fact. The same person who told me this, a female counselor in the area who has worked with a lot of people on both sides of the issue, said, "In McHenry County, the joke is that the first person to claim abuse in a pending divorce wins." And she agreed that it's usually a woman making the claim.
My thought is that, if there is a necessity for 'temporarily' infringing on someone's constitutional rights, there's a much better way to go about it than VAWA provides. The basis is that the accused is denied due process and treated as though guilty prior to any trial. This, of course, is done to protect women and I understand that the Supreme Court has upheld this notion with the idea that, even if some are wronged by the process, it is appropriate since the law is a necessity in order to protect women.
So, if we're going to abuse the constitution in the interest of protecting women, shouldn't we at least do it with some sort of respect for the constitution and those who are subject to the law? In other words, without malice and with complete respect, a judge should, almost apologetically, tell a man, "You have been accused of abusing your wife. We have no evidence at this time to substantiate the accusations. However, in order to ensure your wife's safety, I am going to apply this Order of Protection, which will require you to vacate your home and stay away from your wife until this matter is settled. I will, however, apply this measure with a commitment that it not, in any way, influence the outcome of your pending divorce.
"I want you to know that, considering that you may be innocent of the charges against you, I regret the application of this Order of Protection. However, if we discover evidence that the charges against you are true, I will bring down the full weight of the courts upon you with both feet. On the other hand, if it becomes conclusively apparent that the charges against you were wrongly applied, in other words, if it turns out your wife has abused you, the courts and this law to protect women, by lying, I will bring the courts down on her with equal enthusiasm.
Permalink Reply by Chas Jones on How about INSTEAD we obey the constitution. If a spouse [male or female] fears for their safety let the State pay for temporary shelters for them until lawful courts hears cases and decide them. Protect the rights of both spouses.
It is impossible to prevent all crime, even violent crime. This is why we NEED a moral and religious citizenry.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on The same tactic was used in the 1980's to get the healthcare law passed that has enabled anyone to show up at emergency rooms and get medical care even when it is not an emergency. They cannot be denied evaluation for even the most minor crap, and rarely are they going to pay anything. The rest of us have been paying for it ever since.
Once again, the cause sounds noble, but the effect was more government at our expense.
I saw this as a cop. Woman goes to Family Law Attorney [Divorce]. Next files removal order to get "him" out of the home. Sometimes these guys have only 10 minutes to grab a razor and a clean pair of pants. Next comes the Restraining Order and reassignment of custody of the kids. Next comes the accusations of abuse and all. Then comes in most cases, unsubstantiated claims of physical abuse. Next comes the mans loss of home, visitation with kids, loss of gun ownership and on and on................................... Divorce Attorneys are notorious about planting the seed and then liberally watering it to have the total devastation of divorce and distruction of a family. When you declare war, everyone you see is carrying a gun; its a mindset
Permalink Reply by jere fredenburgh on Donald is correct - no constitutional authority just another liberal 'feel good' law...Congress needs to say 'unconsitutional' but I suspect the democrats would draw out the 'pursuit of happiness' ... 'welfare'.....and use these as their rationale.
Permalink Reply by 0fj8k7tt4p6ax on Tweet this:
"Vote for VAWA to your peril at the ballot box in 2012 #teaparty"
To GOP Reps and Sens.
Permalink Reply by Juls on We have such a law here in Colorado. If the police are dispatched to a home on a domestic violence call - then they MUST MAKE AN ARREST. Want to take a guess who is usually removed from the home in handcuffs? No evidence of abuse is needed - no signs of violence need to be present - only the woman's word that she "feels frightened."
Now I know many of you guys don't like to think badly of the 'fairer sex', but the fact is there are some among us can get pretty vindictive when we're of a mind to. Many a wife has boldly used this law to exert control over her husband's life and habits, and many a husband has been hauled out of his home for having committed the crime of not giving his wife her way.
If this law passes then you better watch your back boys.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
