We’re not that far removed from the era in which the Violence Against Women Act would be unanimously passed and reauthorized by Congress, with the occasional one dissenter, like former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Father Liberty has retired and can no longer vote against probably the greatest advancement against domestic violence in American history, but these days he has his son and a growing band of male Republicans who continue to carry his torch of… whatever you call this.
Yesterday, for the second time in two years, the Senate passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act with a good number of senators voting no — all Republican men, including our very own Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul.
The most common reason these male Republicans give is that VAWA now dares to provide protections for non-citizens, Native Americans and the LGBT community, who obviously don’t deserve it, right?
But some go even further, adding that the Act itself — even without these new provisions — is unconstitutional, a waste of money, and an infringement on your Liberty. Yes, we’re talking about Rand Paul here, of course.
Rand Paul laid out a detailed reasoning of his opposition VAWA in a letter last year to a leader of The Fatherhood Coalition, one of the organizations of the “Men’s Rights Activist” movement, perhaps the most the wretched hive of scum and misogyny you’ll find in America. In 2011, one of their former leaders set himself on fire to show how he had been oppressed by the Violence Against Women Act. You know, simply because he assaulted his 4-year-old daughter:
In a lengthy “Last Statement,” which arrived posthumously at the Keene Sentinel, Tom Ball told his story. All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed. Feminist-crafted anti-domestic violence legislation did the rest. “Twenty-five years ago,” he wrote, “the federal government declared war on men. It is time to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.” Calling for all-out insurrection, he offered tips on making Molotov cocktails and urged his readers to use them against courthouses and police stations. “There will be some casualties in this war,” he predicted. “Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.”
In the letter, Ball also hoped that the Tea Party would continue to expand their influence… so at least he got that wish.
But speaking of the Tea Party and opposition to VAWA, here’s the full text of Rand Paul’s letter to The Fatherhood Coalition, which sounds an awful lot like his former opposition to the Civil Rights Act and Americans With Disabilities Act:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 20 1 1 (S. 1925). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
S. 1 925 would reauthorize and expand a variety of grant programs aimed at countering domestic violence through 2016. While countering violent crimes is a cause that enjoys universal support, the debate over S. 1925 has become contentious due to the inclusion of a variety of controversial new elements to the bill. The legislation would increase benefits available under VAWA to specifically include victims of stalking and “cyberstalking,” as well as same-sex couples, and illegal immigrants who are victims of any sort of violence. Specifically, S. 1925 raises the cap on the number of visas that can be granted to non-citizen victims of crimes who cooperate with 1aw.enforcement officials beyond the current limit of 10,000 per year.
In addition, much of the grant funding provided under VAWA does not directly benefit victims of domestic violence, but goes toward domestic violence research, as well as lobbying for specific state and local law enforcement policies, such as mandatory arrest laws when responding to domestic violence incidents. A variety of studies have shown that the enactment of mandatory arrest laws can actually aggravate further domestic violence. In states where such policies have been enacted, intimate partner homicides have been seen to increase by as much as 60 percent.
Finally, S. 1925 expands provisions related to domestic violence on tribal lands, and expands tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Native Americans. Historically, tribal courts have had jurisdiction over members of their tribe, and moreover, defendants are not constitutionally entitled to the full protections of the Bill of Rights in tribal court.
I am against violence against women, children, men-anyone. Under our Constitution, states are given the responsibility for prosecution of those violent crimes. They don’t need Washington telling them how to provide services and prosecute criminals in these cases. Under the Constitution, states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law. As written, S. 1925 muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement. The Senate passed this legislation on April 26, 2012, by a vote of 68-31. I voted against it. It now awaits consideration by the House of Representatives.
Once more, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in the future. I look forward to hearing from you again.
And just to be fair, that guy who stomped on a woman’s head during Paul’s Senate campaign was only his campaign’s voluntary county coordinator, not paid staff, so don’t let any of those “gotcha” liberal feminists tell you otherwise.
(P.S. — I called it three years ago.)