I agree. And the only 2 reasons the article gives to oppose this don't even make much rational sense.

the measure unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery,

Ok, so I know we fail at this, but shouldn't it still be the governments job to handle it like any other "illegal immigrant" breaking the law, and if the party who's been "battered" is illegal, handle it as you would any other caught illegal? It's not very clear as to how this Act would further contribute to people illegally coming and residing in the US.

and also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples

...Lol. Oh no. How *dare* we allow them rights to not be beaten by their romantic interest as if they were straight.

As fas as Illegals are concerned, if the vicitim was Illegal too, it would garner a method for the bleeding hearts to keep the victim from being deported, when normally, the Illegal would be deported regardless. We can't create methods that allow Illegals to remain in the country. They need to go. SO if this is in the bill, it needs to be removed.

All in all, I think this bill is destined to be a bill that gives special groups benefits that similar, "non domestic violence" crimes would not get. This is wrong. All crime needs to be treated the same. I can't see the point of making a group that gets "special consideration" for the crime except crimes against children.

willowbrook: As a retired victim advocate, I can tell you that the vast majority of domestic violence is directed toward females, but our office gave, (AND GIVES) complete, compassionate services to male victims, ALWAYS!

When it comes to domestic violence against children feminists aren't just "don't ask don't tell." They're more like "let's not talk about it to begin with."

That's because the majority of, and the most egregious crimes against children, are committed by women.

Pandering politicians playing politics with kids lives are vile and disgusting.

just more politicking from the usual suspects. no one cares about this war on women crap. doubling down on news you make up does not make it any more important.

Quite a leap Thomas Paine, quite a leap!

Expecting the USA to honor and execute laws THAT WE ALREADY HAVE about ILLEGAL persons rather than include them as a "special protected group" in new legislation THAT GOES AGAINST LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE-

You equate this with "siding with the taliban"?

"There is another group we've recently had trouble getting rid of that did that too. So you need to check yourself and see if you really want to side with them on this issue.

They're called The Taliban.

• !

#1.6 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:50 AM PDT"

We can't afford to expand funding to any program. We are in debt up to the tip of the dunce cap these politicians must be wearing that keep pushing for expanded financing. If it is that important then they need to figure out what other social program will get cut to finance this one.

Need to stop piling the debt on our children to give people warm and fuzzy feelings going into an election, since that is all it really is.

Hey Kent, respond to willowbrooks comment about special consideration for children. You expectedly diminish violence against men but admit, "...our office gave, (AND GIVES) complete, compassionate services to male victims, ALWAYS." You and your feminist cohorts also typically diminish the frequent occurrence of maternal child abuse.

What does your office do for child victims of maternal abuse?

NOTHING ALWAYS?

If not, WHAT, WHEN?

I thought it was already against the law to beat the wife and kids? Where have I been?

I am, of course, against any violence toward women, or anyone for that matter. But, leave it to some blowhard like biden to try to bring another issue with women up to try to politicize it against Republicans.

In the real world and not in the middle of a political scam by Biden.

They wouldn't need to expand resources and spend more money IF they started putting some teeth into the current abuse laws. If these people who decide to beat their spouses were locked away for at least a year, maybe 20 years for beating their spouses, they might think twice about it the next time. The punishment needs to be severe. I know a guy who has been arrested 3 times for spousal abuse and has NEVER served any time for it and it was not because his wife would not testify. A slap on the hand and a police record. Since when do criminals care how long their police record is? I would rather see them spend the money to build more prisons to hold the ever-increasing number of criminals in this country!

There are ALREADY laws against violence, be it violence against women, gays, men, whomever. This is just another creation of the Dems. to spin and tell lies, hopefully to damage the Republican's reputaion. Ridiculous and oh, SO, transparent.

descrs,

So we let the murderers out of our over crowded prisons so we can lock up someone for leaving a bruise on partner?

The only way we will have the space in prison is to increase financing or finding a cheaper route. Everyone seems to be against a quick death following being found guilty of pre meditated murder and in some states they would rather just let the person sit in prison until they die of natural causes. I fully agree with putting abusers behind bars, but we first have to figure out how to clean the prisons out of people that will have no chance of ever being rehabilitated and becoming productive members of society.

So what is your plan to cut costs in the prison system to allow for the additional burdens?

Joe......you couldn't push a grocery cart.........go back to sleep in your dungeon!

I live in fl, and the way they use the law here is nothing but BS. I know cases here,where the woman is doing the DV and yet the male is the one that get locked up. Where is the shelters for the abused man? Where is the law equal? I've watched cases in court where the woman admits lying to the police in open court, but yet the judge always sides with the woman, and it just so happens that the judge is on the board of directors for the woman shelters, and yet he's the one that gets to fine you, and part of the fines go into the shelters. I was at a get togther and saw a woman make marks on themselves, just to get the man thrown in jail, and sure enough he did. Just another BS bill just to get the votes, for their bank accounts.

just more politicking from the usual suspects. no one cares about this war on women crap. doubling down on news you make up does not make it any more important.

Polls indicate that women do in fact care about this "crap". And the "war on women" is not something made up...it has to do with the GOP's obsession with federal and state control over the the birth canal. They say they believe in "smaller government" and "less regulation". Doesn't look that way to me. Hey republican, stand up when you're talking...your voice is muffled.

@ Gloryhound I am amazed that you have not noticed how many people have been exonerated that would have been dead if we applied your rule of thumb. i hope I am just reading your post wrong. I really do. It is also proven to be cheaper to keep a guy in prison for a life term than to put him to death. So what are you basing your cost saving on? We need to cut the war against drugs and find other alternatives to it. We have been fighting this losing war for far too long and to keep throwing money into it is more expensive than anything we have going on.

And just another note, if we were to stop spending today on the federal level your kids and grand kids will still be paying off this debt so please stop saying that because it is almost idiotic.

Esprit De Corps

Beating a women, an illegal, a gay man, or the beating of anyone else you want to give some group status is illegal. Violence towards another person is illegal whether this law passes or not. The only reason for this law is to classify certain groups as special so the Democrats can play the divisive card come election time. Violence is illegal you don't need fifty different laws to protect fifty different groups and sup groups.

Sanity...........I think we ALL care about this "crap" but we DON"T need new laws to cater to illegals. This is a transparent attempt to politicize an issue by the "usual suspects".

Kent McMillen: "willowbrook: As a retired victim advocate, I can tell you that the vast majority of domestic violence is directed toward females, but our office gave, (AND GIVES) complete, compassionate services to male victims, ALWAYS!"

Thank you for bringing up this bone of contention. The first thing I found offensive about this law was the title – "Violence Against Women Act" – as though men are not victimized by their partners (male or female)!

My first thought upon reading the article was, "So. According to this article (and perhaps in reality as well) the Republican take on the bill is, it's okay to abuse your partner if you are an illegal alien or gay or if you are a woman married to a man." (As I read it, it would be a punishable offense for a lesbian to abuse her partner inasmuch as the victim would be a woman.)

How absurdly narrow-minded!

How about we just accept the fact that domestic violence is a reality and we cannot wink at it or turn a blind eye to it. It is just as much a crime as assaulting a stranger on the street, though more personally offensive because the perpetrator knows the victim.

This is only about the Democrats base. A crime is a crime. The thing that cracks me up about the left is, harming a person is terrible and correctly so, but killing an unborn child is something to celebrate.

willowbrook: "As fas [sic] as Illegals are concerned, if the vicitim [sic] was Illegal too, it would garner a method for the bleeding hearts to keep the victim from being deported …"

willowbrook, are we going out of our way to find excuses not to support this law? There is little or no substance to your argument. If the perpetrator was an illegal, he would be deported. If the victim was an illegal, she also would be deported. End of story.

willowbrook: "All in all, I think this bill is destined to … [give] special groups benefits that similar, "non domestic violence" crimes would not get. This is wrong. All crime needs to be treated the same. I can't see the point of making a group that gets "special consideration" for the crime except crimes against children."

Actually, willowbrook, you are absolutely correct. This is wrong! The bill is not destined to give special groups benefits non-domestic crimes would not get.

The problem with domestic violence (and the target of this law) is that, for too long, it has been regarded as a 'closed doors' kind of crime. There has been, for more than two centuries in the United States and for centuries long before that in Europe, an attitude (and even codified by law in some places (yes, even in America!)) that a woman belonged to her husband and he was entitled to do with her whatever he will. A man was actually able to obtain a divorce simply because his spouse refused to have sex with him as often as he desired or if she failed to properly maintain his household to his specifications. And he was permitted to 'control' her in whatever efforts he deemed necessary to inveigle her to obey his demands. The fact that he beat her – to whatever degree of abuse he was capable of – had nothing to do with the legal system. It was considered "a private matter between husband and wife". After all, did she not agree to "love, honor, and obey" him? A vow not made by him and to which he bore no such mutual bond.

Unfortunately, too many places still cling to much of that same mentality. It was not until the late '80s and early '90s that women were not found guilty of murder one for killing a violently abusive spouse. (You might recall the movie "The Burning Bed" based on the story (written by Faith McNulty) of the life of Francine Hughes, a woman so violently abused by her husband that she eventually killed him. Although she tried to leave him several times, he always found her and brought her back, beating her viciously for her attempted escapes. In the end, she drugged him, doused his bed while he was sleeping and set the bed ablaze. She was subsequently tried for the murder of her husband. Her case was a milestone in the fight against spouse abuse in that she was acquitted of murder based on her attorney's argument that it was not only justifiable homicide but self defense as well based on the reasonable fear that the abuse would eventually kill her.

Ms. Hughes' case was a turning point in the way legal systems across the country viewed such abuse cases thereafter. Courts began to acknowledge spouse abuse as a criminal act and to treat it accordingly.

The Violence Against Women Act is not attempting to give special privilege or treatment to women. It merely wants to ensure that such crimes against one's partner are not swept under the rug or treated with a lesser degree of import than a similar crime against a stranger. That hardly equates to giving 'special benefits' to victims of domestic violence. How anyone could see it as such indicates a full lack of understanding of spouse abuse and domestic violence.

You might also want to consider that men are the 'secret' victims of domestic violence in that they rarely report their abuse at the hands of a spouse. And, while men will more often than not use their bare hands when perpetrating their abuse on a victim, women tend to be smaller and have less muscle mass and so are more likely to use a weapon of some sort from a vase, lamp, kitchen chair, broom handle or board right up to kitchen cutlery (knives) and guns. So a man is far more likely (based on the percentage of cases) to be more seriously injured. (though in sheer numbers, women are far more likely to be seriously injured, maimed, or killed by an abuser.)

If this bill can generate a greater awareness of spouse/partner abuse and move law enforcement and the courts to treat such crimes with the serious they deserve and on an equal basis with stranger crimes of similar proportion, then this would be a good thing, don't you think?

thewordsmith: Why are the feminists at VAWA against the Violence Against Children Act?

Because it's mostly women who perpetrate of these crimes?

RevSpinnaker: When it comes to domestic violence against children feminists aren't just "don't ask don't tell." They're more like "let's not talk about it to begin with."
That's because the majority of, and the most egregious crimes against children, are committed by women."

Actually, RevSpinnaker, while, statistically, based on raw numbers more women do, indeed, perpetrate abuse of children (though on a percentage basis this statistic fails due to the simple fact that more women are caregivers of children as well as elder dependants) when you look at the number of "… the most egregious crimes against children …" you will find that abuse resulting in severe injury, harm, hospitalization, or death is more often committed by a male figure in the child's life. We can go even further to see that this male figure is more likely to be a non-related father figure (i.e. a single mother's live-in boyfriend or second spouse). So, while, yes, "Pandering politicians playing politics with kids lives are vile and disgusting," and there is absolutely no justification of it, you are unnecessarily castigating 'feminists' as well as inserting an issue into this discussion which is unrelated to the subject of the article itself. No, I am not an advocate for child abuse. I find any kind of abuse against any helpless victim a heinous act of cowardice. And I can certainly appreciate your disdain for abusers of defenseless children. But your arguments might be better served if you provided and clarified your statistical support for your statements and 2) stuck to the topic and/or perhaps found a different forum for your advocacy for children of abuse.

RevSpinnaker: "Why are the feminists at VAWA against the Violence Against Children Act?"

Again, if you could please provide some proof as a basis for your contentions rather than merely throwing out accusations against an entire group of people your claim might have more substance. Three democrats (the group usually "accused" of being feminist) including then Sen. Biden, introduced the original Violence Against Women and Children Act in 2007. The bill did not pass and was re-introduced in 2009 and again in 2011. Each time, the bill was spearheaded by one or more Democrats. Obviously, it is impossible to weigh the credibility of your claims when I cannot determine to just exactly which group of 'feminists' you refer. If the Republican party has suddenly become the party of equal rights for women, then I must still seek some evidence of their anti child protection stand. If you refer to Democrats, I am completely at a loss as they seemed to be the ones most aggressively pursuing safety and protection of both women and children.

What happened to equality? What about men who are abused by women? Are they somehow irrelevant now? This is a great way to set a double standard and (effectively) negate all of the battles fought in the name of "gender equality"......besides, how can you save a person who CHOOSES to remain in an abusive relationship? Stalking and violence laws already exist. What more is there to add? Are American women all of the sudden "helpless" now.....or are they still "Free and Empowered"?....because I'm getting mixed signals.

@ thewordsmith:

"Actually, RevSpinnaker, while, statistically, based on raw numbers more women do, indeed, perpetrate abuse of children (though on a percentage basis this statistic fails due to the simple fact that more women are caregivers of children as well as elder dependants)..."

I've heard this mealy-mouthed cop-out of an excuse for close to a half century now. Feminist champion Phil Donahue was once confronted, by a woman, with the fact that women commit the vast majority of violence against children. His response, "That's like saying more men hit home runs." End of discussion. What did he mean by that, women abuse and kill children for sport?

"We can go even further to see that this male figure is more likely to be a non-related father figure (i.e. a single mother's live-in boyfriend or second spouse)."

Thanks for conceding that fact. Now I'll go even further to say child abuse and murder by natural fathers is relatively rare compared with mothers acting alone or in conjunction with a paramour. Statistically, children are safest when natural fathers are present. Children from single parent homes (i.e. single moms) are at the greatest risk of all child abuse.

"you are unnecessarily castigating 'feminists' as well as inserting an issue into this discussion which is unrelated to the subject of the article itself."

Domestic violence is a feminist issue. I take umbrage with the fact that their political mandates, such as VAWA, only include "women & girls." Child abuse (agreed to be mainly perpetrated by women) can cause child victims to grow up with severe social and emotional problems that manifest themselves in a myriad of unhealthy behaviors. Sometimes that includes violence against women, and that would be bad. You want to stop that don't you? But to do that feminists need to deal honestly with maternal abuse.

"But your arguments might be better served if you provided and clarified your statistical support for your statements..."

According to the Center for Disease Control, American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. A 25% increase since 1985. Try the American Psychiatric Foundation. Non-feminist organizations don't argue the statistics or severity of the situation and most refer to it as an "epidemic."

"...stuck to the topic and/or perhaps found a different forum for your advocacy for children of abuse."

Kind of proves my point that this issue is not acceptable in feminist forums regarding domestic violence, like VAWA, because the PC mantra is it only happens to "women & girls.

Those of you who believe this is not something we need may want to take a class on Family and Domestic Violence; it covers all of your arguments against legislation, gives some real statistical information on intimate partner abuse (both genders), child abuse, and elderly abuse.

Domestic violence is STILL an issue that millions of people face everyday.

Within 2 weeks there will be major republican opposition to this cause. It will amount to democratic big government trying to steal the rights away from citizens by making them more dependent on the government and yada yada yada. mark my words, the GOP will crow about this and turn it into a socialism issue; "Even Hitler defended women against domestic violence. This is another attempt to turn attention away from ACA and Abortions and another attempt to make GOPer's look like villians."

VAWA does not ignore men as victims of domestic violence. VAWA funds are used to provides services to any and all male victims that seek services to include male children and male adults. Shelters even use the funds to shelter male victims of domestic abuse. You might want to read VAWA to understand what the Act is and isn't. It funds many things such as shelters, law enforcement, and prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence. It is not anti-man, it is anti-domestic violence and it does recognize that violence against women is pervasive and is the primary reason why women are injured and killed.

@ jfl1971:

"VAWA funds are used to provides services to any and all male victims that seek services to include male children and male adults."

Like Hell they do. VAWA tax funding is funneled directly into feminist shill groups like "Men Against Violence" and Men Can Stop Rape." I've called such organizations and found them to be run by women towing the VAWA party line.

I asked one Judi Huck what her organization would do if a boy called to report he was a victim of maternal domestic violence. Her response, nothing. No referrals, no intervention, no counseling.

However, if he was a perpetrator of DV then they could help out with a variety of services. Probably all court mandated.

This means these organizations are better off financially, if they wait for abused boys to become domestic abusers themselves, rather than provide social awareness, services and counseling for them as victims.

Sounds like perpetuating the DV industry to me.

G-man,

You can't tell me a length of rope on a re-useable hangmans platform the day after the person is found guilty of pre-meditated murder is more expensive than 20 to 60 years of room and board at a prison. Yes mistakes will be made unfortunately, but is it any more humane to keep an innocent man locked up with a bunch of not innocent prisoners for the rest of their life? Or the fact that even if they are found innocent at a later date their life has pretty much been ruined anyway?

So, violence against men in relationships is once again relegated to non-existance, denial and utter disbelief. I can tell you for a fact that the times I called the county sheriff's office in FL over domestic violence issues, the first thing they were going to do was arrest me. I was the automatically guilty white middle-age male. Period. I couldn't get a restraining order either. The judicial system refuses to recognize that the automatically guilty white middle-age male could possibly be a victim of a female. Never mind the recorded voice mail death threats, the assault with knives and the brandished guns all done by the female. Men won't get help from advocacy groups either. The last time I went to one for help, several women there had screaming fits about why some male was invading their safe space and I was run out of the building. The hard lesson for guys is never, ever under any circumstances call the police or sheriff over domestic violence if you are the victim. You will NOT be believed, you will go to jail, possibly prison after a trial and you'll never see your children again. The government will aid and abet your abusive female partner the entire time and pay her to do so with shelter money, food money and a free army of lawyers that you can never get because you are a male. Oh, and when it's all done, the state will sue you for all the money they gave her and the cost of her army of lawyers. The entire system is designed to destroy the male victim, abusive females know it and they use it as one of their biggest weapons. This will be yet another law that further empowers abusive women to destroy men.

@ thewordsmith:

"you will find that abuse resulting in severe injury, harm, hospitalization, or death is more often committed by a male figure in the child's life."

Citations please. According to the CDC among others, young, uneducated, single mothers with no prenatal care are the #1 killers of children. They are the most likely to kill a child within the first twenty-four hours. That's called neonaticide. Women are also the primary killers of children younger than five which is refered to as filicide.

You obviously have no clue about maternal child abuse, are in denial or are puppeting a feminist political stance. Perhaps all three.

FYI: Women kill the most children. Followed by women in conjunction with a paramour. Next is the paramour acting alone. After that it's women in conjunction with the father. And last, fathers acting alone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42634832/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Let's see your citations.

@ thewordsmith:

"Three democrats (the group usually "accused" of being feminist) including then Sen. Biden, introduced the original Violence Against Women and Children Act in 2007. The bill did not pass and was re-introduced in 2009 and again in 2011."

Again, citations please. I have never heard of the so-called 'Violence Against Women and Children Act' of 2007 and have been unable to find it. By that time VAWA had already been entrenched since 1994. The only bill regarding children introduced in 2009 was Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Violence Against Children Act. That bill was also re-introduced in 2011 and I don't believe it was co-sponsored by Biden.

Let's assume the same Republicans were against Boxer's bill as were against VAWA. Yet VAWA was ratified and the Violence Against Children Act has languished in judiciary committees since introduced. Seems if those "democrats (the group usually "accused" of being feminist)" really wanted Boxer's Children's Act passed it would have been ratified three years ago.

Aggie, you are right.

To those disparaging my post.....the point is....we shouldn't be wasting time to "quantify" the violence, rather treat all the violence as a crime and treat those who commit the crime accordingly. We don't need more bills like this one to do it. The next thing will be wasting time trying to determine if the violence is "domestic violence" or not. No, this is a waste of time. Violence is violence, period. This is nothing more than the Democrats war on Women. (Yes I said Democrat....they put stupid bills out like this, knowing the Republicans will see the stupidity of the bill and then the Dems try to use that to say the Republicans don't care about women.....so childish...Please stop!) The first chapters have blown up in their face as the country has seen through their smoke screen. This is more of the same. Please stop wasting time on this and start getting the govt. back on track. How about a budget that reduces the deficit? I'm thinking that should be your priority right now.

Just for the record, at no time did I make any comments concerning domestic violence so those who assumed what my post meant should stop. You are wrong. I have nothing against agencies that help domestic violence vicitms, only against using the system to create "special, protected" groups that gets better, special treatment while those who have the same crime committed against them, without that "special group" status get treated differently.

@Rev - VAWA grants include the STOP grants. STOP grants are used by law enforcement and prosectution. I would encourage you to look at your state UCR (uniform crime report) and see the breakdown by gender of those arrested for DV. You might be surprised to see that many women are arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence. Also, when speaking of child victims, while the child does meet the definition of family member for domestic violence, they fall under the purview of child abuse and neglect services unless a parent is also seeking assistance for domestic violence. There are two areas that are different, sexual assualt and dating violence. Here is the national report on child abuse and neglect for 2010 #page=61 Neglect is the primary crime against children. And, depending on which state, there are different percentages of which gender is the perpetrator. Some states are men, but the majority are women. This is realted to women being the primary caregiver of the child and the majority of single parent homes being female headed. If abandonment was included, don't know what the statistics whould be. As to the killers of children, Chapter 4 in the report breaks it down. 17% were killed by a father acting alone and 29% were killed by a mother acting alone and 22% were killed by the mother and father acting together.

@Rev - VAWA grants include the STOP grants. STOP grants are used by law enforcement and prosectution. I would encourage you to look at your state UCR (uniform crime report) and see the breakdown by gender of those arrested for DV. You might be surprised to see that many women are arrested and prosecuted for domestic violence. Also, when speaking of child victims, while the child does meet the definition of family member for domestic violence, they fall under the purview of child abuse and neglect services unless a parent is also seeking assistance for domestic violence. There are two areas that are different, sexual assualt and dating violence. Here is the national report on child abuse and neglect for 2010 #page=87 Neglect is the primary crime against children. And, depending on which state, there are different percentages of which gender is the perpetrator. Some states are men, but the majority are women. This is realted to women being the primary caregiver of the child and the majority of single parent homes being female headed. If abandonment was included, don't know what the statistics whould be. As to the killers of children, Chapter 4 in the report breaks it down. 17% were killed by a father acting alone and 29% were killed by a mother acting alone and 22% were killed by the mother and father acting together.

jfl1971: Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your statistics left out one growing group of child offenders. According to your information, the remaining 32% of child murders are mom in conjunction with a paramour.

My only point is child abuse can create anti-social, including criminal behavior in adult victims. Criminal behavior that includes rape. So if we want to stop criminal behavior, including rape, we need to direct resources to prevention of, and healing from, traumatic child abuse.

Also, let's say the same Republicans were against the Violence Against Children Act as were against VAWA. VAWA was still ratified. I suggest if feminists made the same effort to pass the Violence Against Children Act as they did VAWA it would already be the law and people like Casey Anthony would be in jail.

So how do you know the 13 year old is turning to internet sex? Did they make a date with you? You are just another disgusting Fred Phelps clone, and probably a closet queen yourself. If anyone should go to an island and just disappear, it's you and your sick ilk.

and also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples.

Yes, the homosexual crowd would like you to believe in 'fairy tale' type relationships with one another. Two males or two females as couples would get along better than over half the heterosexual couples. The domestic violence between two same sex couples is 50% higher than it is for heterosexual couples. And the violence is more severe.

This nation will not believe that homosexuality will hurt society until it experiences the consequences of the CHOICE of homosexuals. All one has to do is look to Canada or Sweeden to see the results.

Welfare Scammer,

Are you in a position with the responsibility to help these people?

i know from experience

And as everybody knows, one example proves any rule.

But in all seriousness, that sounds less like a lesbian issue and more like a white trash issue.

The domestic violence between two same sex couples is 50% higher than it is for heterosexual couples.

In the age of the Internet, why do people still insist on lying? All the sites I visited said that the rate is just the same as heterosexual couples. I can give a list of links to show this if you want. Something tells me though, you don't want facts. Your agenda is set.

And the violence is more severe.

Once again, a lie.

until it experiences the consequences

And what exactly would they be? You can sit here all day and spout out lies if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect others to sit by while you lie in a time when your words can be quickly checked for validity.

Gay or straight, one in four couples experience some type of domestic violence.

Violence is violence. Whether it's against a man or a woman. We need to stop targeting individual groups and start focusing on the problem.

As far as illegals go. Treat the injuries and call Immigration.

Janine,

Agreed. Violence is the problem. Women are the targeted group because their votes aren't locked up.

Agree, Violence is violence no matter who it is aimed at. We need to just enforce our existing laws rather than create another law. Books that cover laws in this country are beginning to look like the tax code book. So huge that no one knows or understands whats in it!

Right on all counts, not. Your just plain stupid.

@Skip Smith

Your just plain stupid. Come on now. Before you call someone else stupid learn the English language. It is you are stupid...hence You're stupid. Get it?

@welfare Scammer you are so correct. Heterosexuals kids never have those problems. I wonder where all of these gay people come from oh @!$%# they came from heterosexuals. Damn so you mean gays and lesbians come from heterosexuals, you gotta be @!$%#ting me. Heterosexual parents do not make mistakes. Get off your high horse.

The gay and lesbian community deserve the same laws and respect as we heterosexuals do. I have one question for you and the people like you, what sin do they commit that is greater than the sin you and I commit? Talk about what sins you commit so we can judge you otherwise let them carry their own crosses and I will carry mine.

Esprit De Corps.

welfarescammer: "They are not only detestable to God, but are disgusting to the rest of us also that are decent and not corrupted by liberal democrats yet..."

So-o-o, God is a Republican? Is that what you are trying to say?

And, based on your avatar, you are a Klansman so, does that mean God is a racist as well?

See... the funny thing here is that, according to Biblical text, God is the number one advocate in favor of compassion, charity, and loving everyone - not just those we, in our mortal ignorance, choose. I'm thinkin' that does not translate so well to your mindset? But try to understand, God does not want people to be hurt by other people. And God does not differentiate between men, women, children, straights, gays, or varying races. According to the Bible, God made us all so, at the core of each of us, we are all, at least a little bit, Godly (as in, "made in the image and likeness of ...").

God just wants us to love and forgive everyone whether we agree with them, their politics, their sexual and/or social agendae or not.

welfarescammer: Did you ever consider your KKK icon may be a little off-putting to people?

@ thewordsmith:

"God just wants us to love and forgive everyone whether we agree with them, their politics, their sexual and/or social agendae or not."

Words to live by welfarescammer. Words to live by.

You ARE aware of the fact that men are battered also.........

Domewars: If you doubt that the GOP opposed the Violence Against Women Act, google the passage of the law, in 1994, with Senator Biden as it's sponsor! Watch the votes, when it is resubmitted! The real war against women if from the GOP!

Kent

I just spent time reading the 1994 bill and the arguments put forth from both sides. Lets see if you can do a little extra work. And how bright can you be to make a blatent garbage statement word for word that sent out from the White House. Unreal. Can't you people think for yourself?

The trouble with many democrats is that they hear something and jump on the bandwagon before doing any due dillegence on the subject. Most people don't take the time to explore the arguments.

Kent, in 1994 both sides voted FOR the domestic violence bill with no problem. It's the additions that the liberals are including in it this time around that the republicans are arguing with.

Illegals are ILLEGAL. Treat any injuries and ship them back to where they came from.

As far as domestic partners or same sex marriages, treat that as you would any violence.

It's not a war against women. It's a war for women's votes.

Kent McMillenDomewars: If you doubt that the GOP opposed the Violence Against Women Act, google the passage of the law, in 1994, with Senator Biden as it's sponsor! Watch the votes, when it is resubmitted! The real war against women if from the GOP!

Why is it that men are always the ones on boards talking about the so called war on "women", as if they even know one way or another. And they usually are the cause, not our solution. We don't need a Violence against women act, we all ready have laws that cover any sort of violence. Why is it that liberals want to segregate groups? Shouldn't we all be protected from violence regardless of what that violence is? Are we not all Americans first?

The only problem in this country with regards to women that is unjust and seriously needs fixing is that Women are still not receiving the same wages for the same job that a man does. That includes under this administration who pays women in his cabinet 18% less then their male counterparts. So please don't say its a GOP problem, its done by both sides of the fence.

@ Kent McMillan:

"The real war against women if from the GOP!"

And the war against children is waged by VAWA, N.O.W. and people like you, who deny the issue of maternal child abuse even though you all know the facts.

"Women's groups" pander children for political gain.

And children are maligned and broken. Some of them may even grow up to be abusive towards women.

And I thought you wanted to stop that kind of thing.

Rev, by now you have made your misogyny clear. We are aware that you have a problem with women and any man who supports them. Let me guess ... Evangelical Reverend, right? The type who believes that women are inferior, should be seen and not heard, are always subordinate to their "masters" (just like any master-slave relationship), should never be independent, should always echo the voice, thoughts and opinions of the MAN in the relationship and should be beaten with a rod/stick no larger than a man's thumb every time they get out of line since THAT'S in the Beye-bull.

Parents of both genders abuse children. EVERYBODY is aware that both genders abuse children. Please drag the record arm out of the groove that has a scratch in it or clean off the CD (whichever analogy you prefer) and drop it.

Revspinnaker is actually a nautical term. I found if I capitalized the R and S it brought out the anti-religious bigotry of people like you, who espouse their political motives at the expense of someone else's spiritual beliefs. By the way, I believe the "rule of thumb" did not originate in the Bible and has largely been debunked. Though I'm no expert, so please quote me the exact verse where it can be found. Or are you just projecting your religious angst on others again. Citations please.

"EVERYBODY is aware that both genders abuse children."

Then why do Eve Ensler, N.O.W. and VAWA deny the existence of maternal child abuse and withold awareness of male victims.

The rule of thumb originated in English common law. The rule stated that a man may beat his wife or child with a rod or stick as long as it was no bigger around than his thumb. Hence, the "rule of thumb" being used to describe a standard.

Obozo wants to be re-elected Tiger. He needs that keep the illegals and their legal family members happy.

Maybe you should choose friends more wisely.

Thomas..........perhaps if dems came up with reasonable bills that didn't pander to one group or another and had a way to be paid for without raising taxes the Repubs would support it. And, try to be less dramatic and more truthful, there was NOT a 500% increase in shootings after the "assualt weopon ban" expired. "Assault weopons" are used in very few crimes and this term is usually mis-used anyway by the liberal state run media.

Feminists condone domestic violence against children by saying and doing nothing about it.

"Evil prevails when good men do nothing."

It's time for feminists to Man-Up about child abuse and murder and ratify Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) Violence Against Children Act.

In many cases the violence begins with mom.

Psssst.....your misogyny is showing. I pity any woman so stupid as to be in a relationship with you.

Mymom: This is exactly what I am talking about..........I actually am married....My wife is a stay-at-home MOM and I work 3 jobs...My two sons are engineers and my daughter is a publishing exec.

WE never had time to sit and feel sorry for ourselves, we were too busy raising our children to be responsible citizens.

My wife and I take care of each other....Way too many women like YOU that feel they should be on a reality show, living like the freaks they portray themselves to be.

Any woman who thinks she has it tough in the US should go to Europe, or better yet, the Middle East.

Just VERRRRRRY tired of hearing women complain about violence when THEY are the ones that pick these druggies, bums,alcoholics, and criminals....Did I mention "no job"??????

You mymom are a prime example......."No one rides for free"......Free choice and YOU women picked them.

Rom1..NO ONE deserves to be beaten. That's just wrong. But I do agree with you to the point that She picked him, and she stays.

Honestly, I don't understand women who stay with guys who abuse them. Myself I would never tolerate it.

I'm not being heartless. I believe she needs help and she should get it, but many of them go back, won't press charges, etc.

I'm not a "Woman hear me roar" type. I'm very NON PC, but women need to be able to take care of themselves. To respect themselves. To stand up to this type of thing.

uh... no "I am woman" type would pick that type of man. More likely the "i need a man to be worthy" type. Either way, the woman is a human being, just like a man or child who is abused by someone stronger than they are - and regardless of her independence or attitude she doesn't deserve to be beaten. Just like men shouldn't be beaten - by anyone. Or children shouldn't be abused - by anyone.

Bottom line: people shouldn't be assualted and then blamed for being assaulted.Why is your first response to defend the abuser by blaming the victim?

Well, well, well Rom1. Aren't you special? You are the big hard-working man of the house. She is your cook, maid, and mom, and under your dominion. It was you who actually stated that the beating of your friends' wives was deserved, wasn't it? Nobody else edited your post, did they? That statement alone demonstrates your innate misogyny, and your relegation of your wife to solely "MOM" status confirms it. You must have a torn rotator cuff by now from patting yourself on the back so much.

By the way, your presumption that I am a woman is based on what? The fact that I believe no woman deserves to be beaten? I am married, and have never lifted a hand to my wife, and yet somehow we raised two children successfully and they are now supporting themselves very nicely. Oh yes, and my wife was not your "stay at home mom" either. Your "blame the victim" mentality justifying wife beatings is quite indicative of your contempt for women in general, and the fact that you are tired of hearing about domestic violence shows that you really don't care about it, and prefer it go unreported and unpunished.

You are a prime example........of a control-freak misogynist whose wife probably raised your children without your help, other than the paycheck. Free choice, and your wife picked YOU. I pity her.

Mamasboy: I'll bet you clicked to collapse my comment about women selecting men sexually by their potential for violence, which is now a clinically proven fact.

Probably wouldn't set well with your wife and mom though.

Women, especially feminists don't like to hear the facts about maternal child abuse either. Sometimes the truth hurts.

RevSpinnaker -- I see a consistent theme in your comments. I hear you -- Women are also abusers of children, not just men. I recognize your pain. I know that women abuse children -- my husband's mother abused and neglected her children. She was abused by her mother. The men in those households did not put a stop to the abuse. However, I do believe that you are way off in your blanket dismissal of "feminists" as not wanting to protect children from abuse -- by women or men.

What is it you want "feminists" to do that they aren't? Who are these "feminists" that you rail against?

rdeesw: Women don't "also" abuse children, they are the primary abusers of children. I would like feminists to include that in their discussions about domestic violence, they currently don't.

Perhaps with inclusive information the "men of those households" could have put a stop to it. My dad did the best he could to protect me.

Who are these feminists? Feminists like my sister exploited my abuse from the day my dad died to isolate me from the family and steal as much from me as she could.

I was a victim of target maternal abuse so it was easy for her. I was isolated by my mother to begin with.

Joy Behar makes jokes about women "who pick out one of their children just to hate them."

That's target abuse and I would expect feminists to loudly condemn her for such a statement.

Rev, I'm sorry you were abused. Please get some help to heal yourself and allow you to move past it.

I am a survivor of spousal abuse. I am a survivor of emotional neglect in childhood. I do NOT allow my prior abuse to consume me. It is NOT who I am. It is part of my past, but it does not define who I am. It has not made me bitter or a misandrynyst. I have reconciled with the parent who was emotionally absent during my childhood and have come to a situation of peace with it because I understand why my father did what he did (it relates to my mother trying to take her own life after my older brother was born). I am married and I have a 5 year old child with my husband.

Please, GET HELP.

Rev...seems to me you have a very very personal agenda here.

@ Cat:

"Rev, I'm sorry you were abused. Please get some help to heal yourself and allow you to move past it.

"I am a survivor of spousal abuse... Blah Blah Blah...

... wow, somehow this became all about you... That's a big problem with women....

Blah Bla Blah ... I am married and I have a 5 year old child with my husband."

Please, GET HELP."

Puleeze, spare me your feigned sympathy. It's demeaning and condescending. The fact is 25 years ago I was part of the help. I worked with a group of forward thinking men who organized the first groups for men who were sexually abused at the Ravenswood Hospital in Chicago. We appeared on panel discussions at a national DCFS Convention, survivors conferences and the national Phyliss Levy Radio Show at WLS. I wrote editorials for the Chicago Sun-Times on the issue, including one with the late Jeffrey Zaslow. We phone blitzed Oprah producers to include men in her discussions of child sexual abuse. They complied and I spoke briefly from the studio audience. That was her last show to include men until her last season's "200 Man Show."

In it Oprah laments she had no idea men would have intimacy and trust problems from being raped as children. Or that sexual abuse of boys has a direct relation to adult criminal behavior. She sounded stunned to find out boys have feelings too, actual living souls to crush. Her ahha moment struck me as coldly sexist. Besides, she knew better more 25 years ago. Oprah, like most feminists are no Earth Goddess Mothers when they have deliberately abandoned male children for decades.

Read more: http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/An-Oprah-Show-Event-200-Men-Who-Were-Molested-Come-Forward-Part-2?show_info_id=1615&cc=US#ixzz1sS8yH4Pl

@ Cat:

"Rev, I'm sorry you were abused. Please get some help to heal yourself and allow you to move past it.

"I am a survivor of spousal abuse... Blah Blah Blah...

... wow, somehow this became all about you... That's a big problem with women....

Blah Bla Blah ... I am married and I have a 5 year old child with my husband."

Please, GET HELP."

Puleeze, spare me your feigned sympathy. It's demeaning and condescending. The fact is 25 years ago I was part of the help. I worked with a group of forward thinking men who organized the first groups for men who were sexually abused at the Ravenswood Hospital in Chicago. We appeared on panel discussions at a national DCFS Convention, survivors conferences and the national Phyliss Levy Radio Show at WLS. I wrote editorials for the Chicago Sun-Times on the issue, including one with the late Jeffrey Zaslow. We phone blitzed Oprah producers to include men in her discussions of child sexual abuse. They complied and I spoke briefly from the studio audience. That was her last show to include men until her last season's "200 Man Show."

In it Oprah laments she had no idea men would have intimacy and trust problems from being raped as children. Or that sexual abuse of boys has a direct relation to adult criminal behavior. She sounded stunned to find out boys have feelings too, actual living souls to crush. Her ahha moment struck me as coldly sexist. Besides, she knew better more 25 years ago. Oprah, like most feminists are no Earth Goddess Mothers when they have deliberately abandoned male children for decades.

Wow, Rev. Just wow.

I would THINK that someone who had ACTUALLY suffered abuse would have some EMPATHY with someone who has been raped, emotionally abused, mentally abused, verbally abused and physically abused. You, however, seem to have decided that MY past abuse means NOTHING.

Isn't that making you guilty of what you are claiming others are guilty of? I did NOT downplay the importance of YOUR abuse. I did NOT minimize YOUR issues that would result form that. The FACT that you have minimized MINE speaks to the fact that YOU ARE LYING about your own past abuse.

As a survivor, I have sympathy and empathy with others and do NOT downplay the effects of abuse. I still fight the after effects EVERY DAY. But I now know that you are claiming something that OBVIOUSLY never happened TO YOU. If it had, you would NEVER discount someone else's abuse. You would NEVER do to me what you CLAIM was done to you. Just as I fight every day to avoid perpetuating the abuse onto a new generation and will stand up and FIGHT for ALL abuse and rape victims, you appear to want to VICTIMIZE women and thus carry the abuse forward. This means either you REALLY need to get some inpatient help or you are LYING and just have an axe to grind and don't care WHO you hurt.

Accusing male child abuse victims of being liars is standard feminist policy. How typical.

Are you really that r e t a r d e d or are you putting in an extra effort today?

Bill-4012182- They want to be bring back "true" american values and culture, like the annilation of the American Indian, slavery, women with no right to vote...

Really Bill? Tell me exactly which conservative says they want to bring back slavery, annihilate American Indians and remove voting rights for women?

You're a fool who's full of $hit. You're just spewing more lies of the LWNJ's.

not to clear on the lyrics?

OMG you figured us out Bill. In fact, tomorrow a bunch of us are heading to the nearest reservation and are going to off as many savages as we can. Of course we're going to drive there drunk and then campaign against women's suffrage. Oh you, you're good...

Not too much of an extremist, are we, Bill?

By the way, can you say, "Bay of Pigs Invasion" which was carried out under a Democrat President and tried to remove the government leader put into power by America? Or do you only count successful overthrows and not attempts?

Believe me, the American Indian has no great love for the Democrat Great White Chief or a Republican one.

Allende’s Death Was a Suicide, an Autopsy Concludes

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO and PASCALE BONNEFOY

Published: July 19, 2011

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — A new autopsy has determined that President Salvador Allende of Chile killed himself with an assault rifle, Chilean officials said Tuesday, dispelling doubts that have persisted for 37 years about the exact circumstances of his death, including whether troops storming the presidential palace had murdered him.

May I ask, which Iranian leader "Some Conservatives" want out of his leadership position? You couldn't possibly mean the one that leads a country that believes women are little more than "chattel"? Uses the threat of nuclear weapons to destabilize a region? Supports world wide terror groups? One that has vowed to wipe another nation off of the face of the Earth by the use of nuclear weapons?

Of course, you are not one to let little things like facts get in your way.

Yes, and of course, getting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a higher priority by Obama than getting domestic violence protection through first! Can you spell "Political Pandering"?

Have a great life, Bill!

Bill Wasn't it a liberal who decided to interfere in Egypt (Mubarrak), Libya (Khaddafyi) and now Syria by giving weapons to the rebels.

I totally agree with you on that statement!!! When the G.O.P and Tea Party uses terms like;"We need to take back our country." and other divicive remarks and they have Rush and Ted speaking for the fringes of the right, you can see plain as day that that is the route the Republicans want to take. You can trace this back to 2008. And mark my words. If Romney is elected then we as Americans can kiss any and all things that actually help the country good bye!!!! Just look at what they are doing in Republican governed states. It's going to be the 1950's again.

They may start 50% but I'll bet they lose nearly 90%. Just sayin...

They also kill and abuse the most children.

Really? I'm shocked. Nobody else does this, do they?

Hey, momraisedafool,

The problem is that the Dems introduce bull crap to try to get votes. Crap that pulls on heartstrings.

Obama even went so low as to use a poor dead kid to try to shore up votes. Rest in peace Trayvon...

Of course the Dems are the only ones that do this. RIght?

The real epidemic of domestic violence in America is against children. Obama is pandering to feminist interest groups at the expense of kids.

Tony-718521:

As a retired victim advocate, I can tell ylu that the vast majority of domestic violence is directed toward females, but males can be victims, and were given complete compassionate consideration in our office. Senator Biden was the author of the Violence Against Women Ace (VAWA), and was a champion of this issue long before he was Vice President!

Kent:

I rest my case...today, men are victims in large numbers by women that know law enforcement will side with them in most cases. You seem to trivialize this, like most do, because it's not as important as victimized women. In divorce court, men can lose everything including their children even if the women was the aggressor. The law is severely biased and favors women...that's a fact!

Lastly, women today seem to be attracted to "bad boy" image as their partners. This is evident. If this is their desire, then you reap what you sow!!!

Kent: Who is more vulnerable to domestic violence, women or children? Who commits the most crimes against children?

Why don't you and your feminist bedfellows concern yourselves with the well established fact that American women are some of the worst child abusers in the industrialized world? Why doesn't child abuse fit into the feminist definition of "domestic violence?"

Because women commit most of it.

Still waiting for a response Kent (pro-child abuse feminist) McMillen.

...and waiting...

...ZZZZZ....

Don't forget that Obama now wants to "double-down" on the failed energy companies! What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome!!!

Jimcoloraddo2047646: VAWA gives law enforcement better tools to enforce the prohibition against domestic violence directed toward women, which is most of it. As a retired victim advocate, I can remember how much better VAWA made it for female victims!

Jim:

You're right. Here in NY, you can be charged with a felony for domestic violence. However, it's a very biased system against men.

Wrong Kent! The most domestic violence is directed at children. More children die per day as a result of domestic violence than women.

According to the CDC American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world.

As a "victim advocate" what is VAWA doing to stop this epidemic of maternal child abuse and murder? Why are feminists against the Violence Against Children Act?

Rev, you need to stop spouting...yes, I know you will turn your bashing against me now...child abuse is different than what is classified under VAWA. VAWA is geared toward the violence that is mainly perpetrated against women (battering and rape). Child abuse falls under different acts and funding streams. No one is discounting that child abuse occurs way more than it should (as it really should NEVER occur). Your continued spewing is detracting completely from the what the article and the threads are about. Have you read the proposed act you keep talking about? S. 175: Violence Against Children Act of 2011? It talks about all violence against those under 18. It has funding and training provisions. It also includes a reporting provision. Two large sections of the Act are regarding gangs and school safety. So please tell me why you keep harping on the the proposed VACA as the panacea to stop child abuse? And why do you solely focus on maternal child abuse when fathers are also perpetrators and killers of children? The percentages are actually very close.

Boss of Sauce:

Your bias against women is showing!

You're lack of reality is showing

Kent:

You of all people should know and acknowledge the system today is biased against men. A women can accuse a man of domestic violence and law enforcement can make an arrest simply on her accusations. And before you say that's not possible, in the real world it happens most of the time!

Kent: Are you a paid trolling hack of VAWA?

@ Kent McMillen:

"Boss of Sauce:

Your bias against women is showing!"

And your feminist bias against children is clear as a bell.

Kent,

Your bias against everyone except women is showing!

Either every victim of violence deserves such "services" or none do. Singling out women is vote grabbing. We all know it.

Have you put any thought into why now the push for this law and why it was ignored for the past three years?

Mary:

Simple...Women votes for Obama! Chicago politics at its best!

Kent: Haven't heard you mention violence against children yet. Are you biased against them? Perhaps that's why America's seen a 25% increase in child abuse and murder since 1985. That doesn't bother you?

What the Hell kind of "victims advocate" are you anyway?

Trust me when I say that with Bidens' "leadership" on this it is going nowhere. Joe has a hard time "leading" anything, except the ignorant sheep who subscribe to the Dimocrap idiocy of this administration. In 3 years how many "projects" has Obozo placed VP Birdbrain in charge of?? And he has completed how many?? Hell, he can't even answer simple questions regarding the issue at hand. And the Libs have the audacity to call Republicans "retards"??? As a Moderate Independent Conservative I laugh my a** off at these clowns. You should too. Biden is an embarrassment to the USA.....not just the Libs.

Well, since everyone else seems to want to throw their hat into the ring, I'll oblige:

It's not that easy. Granted, I'm sure you all hear stories about how Jim Bob was disenfranchised by a scornful woman, but, I maintain, it's not that simple. Police don't want to move the paperwork without evidence. They can be called five, ten, more times, and they still won't necessarily give the victim anything but a hotel number (or the perp; unless they're actively beating the victim or the victim presses charges with bruises and cuts, they don't. intervene. aside from getting one spouse or the other out of the house for the night.) This is SOP in most districts that I know of.

Now, if you look at the act of getting a restraining order; you need to show the bruises, evidence of stalking. Anything. It's not this hearsay you folks have been passing around in the bar. Police use procedure. And the good ones are very thorough. (The bad ones are like the recent dog killer and whoever didn't arrest that befuddled cop wannabe in Florida with a man lying there dead.)

So, any concrete, non-chain letter, non-Jim Bob's friend in the other county had this happen to him stories? Because to me, right now, it sounds like an excuse to hate people who are routinely victimized by a single perpetrator (domestic violence victims usually are, male or female). I see a flaw in this.

Also; it seems a lot of kids are murdered during non-custodial kidnappings, or murder-suicides, or by out-of-work fathers. That issues seems to be across the board, male or female. It's irrelevant when you're talking spousal abuse, although often a side effect. It's relevant when you're talking child abuse; like how apples and pears both have blossoms but they're not the same fruit. It would do better if people didn't conflate things when arguing about issues that impact human lives.

notinallcases: When it comes to child murder, women are most often the sole perpetrator. Especially with children younger than one, which are the majority of cases.