The so called "War on Women".

The Violence Against Women Act is an act that was first brought about in 1994 in the effort to provide victims (women) of domestic violent crimes support in the form of shelters and legal aid. Of course, this act has been revised 3 official times with many other proposed bills to change it. The current issue amongst Republicans is that the Democrats want the bill to give federal funding to victims and also temporary visas to immigrants that are victims of violent crimes. There is also a new bill towards this act that gives Native American tribal leaders more power to prosecute non-Indian residents who cause violent crimes to their spouses or girlfriends.

Ms. Sepassi’s editorial blog on this subject called “Women: Republican vs Democrat”, shows that she is in favor of this act and she thinks that the Republicans being against this act means that Republicans are against women. Although I can see her train of thought, I do disagree. After researching this act, I found that the reason why the Republicans are against the new amendments to the act is because they are against giving federal funding towards protecting same sex couples and they are also against giving visas to immigrants just because they are in a violent relationship.  The new bill uses too much money (in the tune of $682 million) and Republicans want to revise that and hold back the bill to lower the amount of federal funding.

Democrats have turned this around on the Republicans to make it look like they are creating a “war on women”, which is not true. They are concerned about the spending and (being Republicans) they are against the support of same sex couples, which I do not feel is right. But I do agree with Republicans on the issue of spending and giving out visas. I do not think that immigrants should get visas just because they help law enforcement in a domestic violence case. To me, that’s not a reason. I do not feel that America should be the world’s police.  Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) addressed the issue of Democrats using this bill as a political ploy to make Republicans look bad and I believe this quote from him sums up the real agenda of Democrats when it comes to this issue.

“All these things add up to things that are keeping a bill that could pass on a voice vote from being passed,” Grassley said. “Violence against women except for these additions is noncontroversial. I’m afraid what they’re doing here is they want a political issue — you know, ‘war on women’ — and they are going to end up with another one-year extension.”

My personal views on this act are not what the normal woman would probably think. I know that with an issue like domestic violence it is easy to just say “Let’s fix it!” But it isn’t that easy. I think that whitehouse.gov saying that this act will fulfill the promise of ending domestic violence towards women is entirely unrealistic. That’s like saying they promise to end murders and poverty. It won’t happen. We are human, animals, and unfortunately bad things will happen. I do support shelters and clinics for violence victims, but I think that this act should be more focused on prevention or empowering women to protect themselves against the violence. Whether that is though self-defense classes or even in relationship counseling classes to know how to leave an abusive relationship or how to not be involved in one to begin with. I also do not think that this act should just cover women. Although it is highly less likely, there are men who are abused by women. Where do they go? They have no coverage lawfully and are left alone because they are men and being abused is not “the manly” thing to do. Expanding the coverage of this act for every legal citizen will also include domestic violence amongst same sex couples. I feel that this act only focuses on women because they are the most likely to be victims, but I do not think that is fair. Anyone who is a victim should feel secure enough in our government to know that they are protected from their abusers. But to have such a limited act that costs so much is ignorant to me. And why not have an act that actually helps people before they are victims? Why do we have to wait until they are already hurt? Doesn’t make sense to me.

My sources are:

Grassley: GOP won't filibuster Violence Against Women Act

House Republicans to Propose own Anti-Domestic Violence Bill

Strengthening the Violence Against Women Act

Ms. Sepassi's blog can be found at:

Elizabeth Sepassi

Pleasantly Surprised

When I read the first couple of lines on Megan Prices editorial blog over Karl Rove Group Sees Obama's Personal DynamismAs Key Challenge In 2012 Election, I thought “oh great, another Obama supporter!” and I had a prejudice against what I thought would be in her editorial. But I was pleasantly surprised. Megan did say that a big key factor to her liking Obama is his “sparkling personality”, which I disagree with entirely because he freaks me out and I can barely stand to look at him! But I was surprised when she agreed that a candidates smile and personality is not enough to determine if he should be the president and that she wanted to learn more about Obama’s platform. That is what she chose Karl Rove Group Sees Obama’s Personal Dynamism As Key Challenge in 2012 Election to base her editorial over, and I respect that. I like to see that there are people out there who want to learn more about the people they are voting for and do not just base their decision off of looks. Candidates used to be chosen from their policies and platform and who would be the best candidate for our nation, but ever since Kennedy it seems that looks and personality play a bigger role and platform and policy has taken a back road. I believe that a voter needs to trust who they vote for and so in that way personality does play a key role, but I think that the candidate’s policies should definitely be the most important factor in voting. That is why I was pleasantly surprised with Megan’s editorial, even if we do have different opinions about Obama’s physical qualities. At least we are both trying to dig deeper and find out all that we can about the candidates so that we can make the best decision in this coming up election.

 To view Megan's entire blog click here

Lesser of Two Evils

It was actually pretty difficult for me to come up with a topic to write about for this blog post. Which, to be honest, is amazing to me because I am usually pretty opinionated about a lot of issues. I have been watching a few different news channels about the coming elections and it frankly scares me. We are literally in an election where voters will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

First you have Obama who will obviously be the Democratic Party representative. Besides the fact that I am a different party than Obama so I will, of course, have different opinions on his platforms than a democratic supporters would, I do not feel that he is even very American. And that is not a play on the whole birth certificate controversy that has surrounded his term and campaign. Which while we are on that topic, how can someone run (and be elected) without being able to provide a simple document like a birth certificate? That is one of the most basic rules to being President of the United States. How can he have surpassed that? But besides that, one of my biggest pet peeves with Obama is the fact that he sticks the government’s nose into places that it does not belong. For example, when he “saved” the auto industry from bankruptcy by bailing them out with millions of dollars. America is supposed to be a free market. It is up to the individual businesses responsibility to keep up with their accounting and financing. The auto industry probably wouldn’t have been in such bad shape if it wasn’t for the Democratic Party’s insistent use of “global warming” as a scare tactic to make consumers buy hybrid cars from companies that the government partly owned. Ever think about that? The government basically invested money into a company so, of course, they will want consumers to feel compelled to buy cars from that company. It is all just very shady to me and I believe that the longer citizens go on not trusting their government is a very dangerous thing.

On the other side of the campaign you have either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. These two men scare me! Romney basically hates women. He would (try to at least) remove all Planned Parenthood facilities and any type of women’s health and women’s decision about their health. As a woman, I do not like the idea of some man bringing his political and religious ideas into my life and making my decisions for me. As for Santorum, he doesn’t even know what is in the constitution because he apparently has never heard of the separation of Church and State. He inhumane war against the lesbian, gay and bisexual community reminds me of Hitler. The fact the he can be quoted as saying “One of the few things I agree with the Taliban on…”, is outrageous. He was speaking about the Taliban’s hatred of homosexuals. I do not want a president who has anything in common with the Taliban. Do you?

America isn’t what it used to be. It isn’t the land of the free and it sure isn’t the home of the brave. It is the land of lies and selfish agendas. I do not think that any of the potential candidates remember what America was founded for and what it, at one time, stood for. Personally, I would love to see this country become the biggest and best in the economy and education again. But, apparently, the bigger concerns for our candidates are decisions that don’t involve them and what some people choose to do in their bedrooms. There are so many concerns and worries in my mind that that is why I could not just focus on one issue for this blog. Our into government is an issue that needs to be addressed.