antifeminism

Todd Akin isn’t the only one urging the Republican Party to move even further to the right. In an interview with Policy Mic, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum says the GOP should put more of an emphasis on social issues and look to conservative firebrands Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee as their role models. She blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on a “tremendous” drop-off in white voters, even though according to exit poll data white voter turnout was about the same as the last presidential election and Romney out-performed John McCain among white voters.

Schlafly, who also revealed that she is writing a book entitled Who Killed the American Family?, called feminism “the most destructive element in our society” and claimed feminists would “really like to get rid of” all men, while insisting that the Constitution has never been a sexist document and people should “stop complaining” about a lack of female candidates for office.

She also made the absurd claim that the government didn’t play a role in fighting the Great Depression and that Mexican immigrants aren’t becoming Americans because they are too comfortable with the welfare state and not voting Republican. Schlafly called the Senate immigration reform bill “suicide for our country” and said Mexico will use it to take over US territory.

On the topic of gay rights, Schlafly said that she continues to oppose marriage equality despite having a gay son, but also seems to be under the impression that same-sex couples can already get married: “Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are really pushing “an interference with our free speech rights” and warned that “homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.”

When asked if President Obama should be impeached, Schlafly claimed that the recent IRS controversy is far worse than Watergate, which she called “just an ordinary little break in to an office,” and added that Obama could also be impeached over his opposition to the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Sagar Jethani: Reflecting on Mitt Romney's defeat in November, Senator Lindsey Graham said "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." You disagree.

Phyllis Schlafly: Lindsey Graham is one of the establishment Republicans. They picked Romney, and they have to defend him. There were many, many things wrong with the election and the campaign in 2012. One of them was that establishment Republicans really don't have a ground game. They really don't know how to relate to grassroots Americans. Romney appealed to the people who are well-to-do and traditionally Republican, but there wasn't any outreach from that. And the real block that he failed to get was the white voters — his drop-off from white voters was tremendous.

…

Who represents the future of the GOP?

People like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee who are not establishment candidates.

What about Marco Rubio? Wasn't he a grassroots candidate?

Originally, Marco Rubio was until he went over and joined the establishment and became their salesman for unlimited amnesty.

…

Republicans are often criticized for wanting to dismantle the safety nets people depend on. Do you think the government has a role to play in helping those who struggle to get by?

I grew up during the Great Depression, and didn't have any of these government handouts, and we grew up to be what was called the Greatest Generation. The idea of an enormous number of people getting food stamps? Nobody's hungry in the United States. I think we need to build more self-reliance. We need to build the nuclear family, in which the father is the provider and the mother is a mother.

…

You recently argued against amnesty for undocumented immigrants, saying it would be suicide for the Republican Party because they would all vote Democratic. You don't think that Hispanics resonate with Republican values?

I don't see any evidence that Hispanics resonate with Republican values. They have no experience or knowledge of the whole idea of limited government and keeping government out of our private lives. They come from a country where the government has to decide everything. I don't know where you get the idea that the Mexicans coming in resonate with Republican values. They're running an illegitimacy rate that is extremely high. I think it's the highest of any ethnic group. We welcome people who want to be Americans. And then you hear many of them talk about wanting Mexico to reclaim several of our Southwestern states, because they think Mexico should really own some of those states. Well, that's unacceptable. We don't want people like that.

What do you make of the Gang of Eight's bill on comprehensive immigration reform now making its way through Congress?

It is suicide for our country, and not just for the Republican Party.

...

According to Gallup, the number of Americans who consider gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable has shot up from 38% in 2002 to 54% today. Is it time for conservatives to get with the program and start supporting gay rights?

No, it certainly isn't. The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage? Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage. Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There's no law against that. What they are demanding is that we respect them as being OK, and that's an interference with our free speech rights. There's no obligation that we have to respect something we think is morally wrong.

Republicans oppose gay marriage by a large margin, with only about 25% supporting it. But if you break down the results by age, you find that young Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage, with about 40% supporting it.

What you say is certainly substantially true, but I think it's a result of what they're taught in the schools. They've been teaching in the schools that homosexuality is OK for years. So the kids who have been taught that have grown up, and they've been made to believe it. The homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.

Your own son, John, is gay. What do you say to those who argue that your view on gay rights prevents people like him from enjoying the same rights that heterosexual Americans possess?

In the first place, I'd say it's really none of their business. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. My son is very supportive of my work. In fact, he works for me in the Eagle Forum. He's a fine, honorable man. It does not cause any problems in our family.

…

You don't think feminism has done some good in raising the status of women?

The feminist movement is the most destructive element in our society. It has done nothing but damage. It has not done anything good for women, whatsoever. The worst part of it is the attitude that breeds in young women in making them think that they are the victims of the oppressive patriarchy. That is so false. If you wake up in the morning thinking you're a victim, you're probably not going to be happy or accomplish anything.

Don't women in this country still have a long way to go in terms of enjoying the same rights that men have held from the beginning?

American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. We should rejoice in the great, wonderful country we have. Women have always been in the Constitution. There is no sexist word in the Constitution. It is written for We, the people and every word in it is sex-neutral, like person, citizen, elector, and Senator. I don't know what they're complaining about. You can do whatever you want.

Yesterday, Chris Jankowski, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said that it's hard to recruit women to run for office because Republicans don't value women as much as men.

What you said is ridiculous, and the guy who said it has been influenced by feminist propaganda. I can tell you why it's hard to recruit women. I have run for office. I ran twice for Congress. Women don't like to do what you have to do to get elected in the same proportion that men do. It's just plain tough: eat all those bad chicken dinners, travel all the time, expose yourself to attack by the other side all the time. And if you get elected to Congress, you may live a couple of thousand miles away from home. There will never be a large proportion of women who choose that lifestyle as compared to men. So stop complaining.

You argue that radical feminists have pushed for easier divorce laws to destroy the traditional family unit.

Of course, radical feminists push for divorce. They think men are not necessary, and they'd really like to get rid of them. The easy divorce law should be called unilateral divorce: it means one spouse can break a contract, and get out of solemn promises made in public before witnesses without the consent of the other party — without any fault on the side of the other party. That is so contrary to American constitutional law. Our Constitution is supposed to uphold the sanctity of contracts, but it doesn't.

…

We've seen a few scandals unfold in the past couple of weeks — the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department secretly monitoring private communications at the Associated Press, Fox, and other news organizations. Do you agree with Steve King and Michele Bachmann that these scandals are worse than Watergate?

Well, of course the IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate. Watergate was just an ordinary little break in to an office. The harassment by the IRS, particularly of those who use Tea Party or Patriot in their titles, is just a total outrage. These groups had every right to get their status approved in a couple of weeks. Instead, they were harassed for years.

…

Do you agree with those on the right who say the recent scandals merit impeachment proceedings?

I think there are many reasons why Obama could be impeached, but I'm not leading that battle. I think the best way is for Congress to stand up and stop a lot of the mischief that he's doing which may be illegal. The Constitution makes it the duty of the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He's got Eric Holder trying to overturn a law that was duly passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and signed by Bill Clinton — namely, the Defense of Marriage Act. He's not taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That's just one of his offenses.

It’s that time of year again when Girl Scouts sell cookies… and right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts. Today, Linda Harvey of Mission America took offense that the Scouts support “radical feminists” and “homosexual lifestyles” and “feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials.” She alleged that they dismiss “authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood” and “sexual self-restraint” while at the same time promoting “an attitude of suspicion toward males.”

This is not at all the way the organization started, but Girl Scout materials and programs support role models like radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, they support homosexual lifestyles and feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials. At the same time virtually absent is respect for authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood. It’s one more way that girls are being taught that unless you have an attitude of suspicion toward males in general, unless you bring home a paycheck and unless you have a worldview based on self-indulgence with never a notion of sacrifice, you as a woman are really diminished in worth, sexual self-restraint or restraint of just your own female pride should be avoided at all costs.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori guest-hosted this weekend’s edition of Eagle Forum Live, where she got to interview Schlalfy’s niece, Suzanne Venker, about her new book, How to Choose a Husband. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, is the sort who advises women not to become brain surgeons.

It was no surprise, then, that she and Cori blamed the rise of feminism for the problems women face while dating.

Venker denounces feminists for teaching women that relationships should be equal partnerships and that they should have skills for the workforce rather than tools to be a wife.

Cori: Are young women today too competitive when they look at their relationships?

Venker: I do thinks so. I don’t think they know any other way. I think they’ve been raised to have a life in the workforce and they’ve been given absolutely no tools for how to be a wife or how to even be a girlfriend. So they’ve inadvertently brought those tools that they’ve acquired for the workforce into their love lives and it’s not working. Men don’t want to be bossed around so if you’re the boss at work that’s fine but you’re going to have to shift gears at home because that doesn’t work for love.

Cori: You can’t say, ‘tonight’s your time to wash the dishes,’ because that will break a relationship, ‘I washed the dishes last night so now you’ve got to wash the dishes.’

Venker: Exactly. That’s tit-for-tat and that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s what equality demands. If everything is supposed to be fifty-fifty at all times and you’re keeping score, your marriage is going to fail.

She goes on to explain that feminists have corrupted the minds of women by making them think positively about “being single and being sexually free.”

Cori: When you go on a job interview attitude is the most important factor, and of course dating is just another form of a job interview, are single young women today victims of their own attitude when they date?

Venker: They are. You have to remember, this is the generation that was raised to ‘never depend on a man’ and not only never depend on one, really that you just don’t need a man period. So that’s a whole different life than the kind of life women were taught to inspire to in the past. What’s unfortunate about it is that it sounded I guess at some point empowering, I hate the use of that word the way feminists use it because it’s actually a very good word, but they use it to mean that being empowered is being single and being sexually free to do what you want and when you want and not being tied down to anything, but of course at some point that’s going to run its course.

Feminist moms are especially to blame:

Cori: Suzanne, women’s literature is filled with plaintive tales of bad guys or good guys who get away, do women today need happier stories or better role models in the society, or have their mothers just messed up on teaching them these rules?

Venker: Well I do believe it’s the latter. I believe that they came from a generation of baby boomer feminists who’ve taught them all kinds of negative thoughts about men and marriage. What I’m saying in this book, “How to Choose a Husband,” is you’re going to have to — as hard as it is — accept that your mother, if this was your story, doesn’t have the answers that you are looking for and you’re going to have a hard time finding them in the culture as well, which is why I wrote the book.

As the Obama administration continues to be a complete nightmare for antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Eagle Forum president is out with a new column attacking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over his decision to end the ban on women in combat. She claims the policy shift is “lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists” and even makes a bogus analogy to the NFL.

Schlafly said that the rate of sexual assaults “will skyrocket” if the ban is removed and also attacked the “feminist ideology” for blaming men for such incidents: “Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.

…

Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims. [emphasis added]

…

How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.

…

A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Fearing for the fate of our nation after the election, Pastor Kevin Swanson of Generations with Vision Ministry cautioned that socialism, homosexuality, the legalization of marijuana, and most of all, independent women will contribute to the destruction of America. Swanson emphasized that single women are “leading the charge toward socialism,” and that they have been conditioned to “think like feminists,” abandon relationships with their family and become utterly dependent on government. Women no longer seek security from their fathers and husbands, asserts Swanson, but from the government and Barack Obama. And it’s not just the single women that Swanson vilifies, but the women acquiring leadership positions. He contends that “one of the other indications that a nation is falling down…is that women are leading the nation,” citing “God’s descriptions of the breakdown of empires in the BC years.”

Remember, it’s mostly independent women that are leading the charge here. Remember that the majority of households are led by independent, single women today in America, and what is it 54% to 45% voted for the most socialist than the lesser socialist on the ballot. Our nation is being led by single women, independent women who have been trained to think like feminists, they no longer see the family as an important social unit, and their security does not come from their fathers and husbands, it comes from Barack Obama. And we’ve been saying this for the last ten years, friends, I’ve crisscrossed the nation I’ve told hundreds of thousands of people this, and of course, many of them will lead their daughters to become independent so that they will vote for Barack Obama, or somebody even more socialist in years to come.

…

One of the other indications that a nation is falling down according to Isaiah 3 and Isaiah 19 is that women are leading the nation. This is clear, really, really clear from God’s descriptions of the breakdown of empires in the BC years. You’re going to get this all the way through the Old Testament…I know it’s unpopular, people don’t want to hear oh, when women lead, this is an indication that men aren’t leading and women are leading and you’re going to see a breakdown of systems and a breakdown of nations and empires. I’m sorry but that’s just the way it’s been over the last six thousand years so get over it.

Swanson, who previously implored America to revert to the biblical law of Pilgrim society where homosexuality was punishable by death, also claimed that “homosexuality is on a roll.” He attributes this to the liberal education system and the “pro-homosexual” agenda of the schools, alleging that there will be “a seven times increase in incidents of homosexuality in the 2020s and 2030s.”

Homosexuality is of course on a roll, and will be for the next twenty years at least. And we have been saying so many times, this is no surprise at all because of what’s going on in the schools, because you educate children in a pro-homosexual anti-God’s law perspective over twenty, twenty-five years, of course they’re going to be pro-homosexual. When you’ve got a liberal education system, and you’ve got a breakdown of the family…42% of these little boys are born without fathers up from six percent in 1960, of course you’re going to have a seven times increase in incidents of homosexuality in the 2020s and 2030s, you’re going to continue to see homosexual marriage on the roll.

Discredited right-wing author and conspiracy theorist Ed Klein was featured on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly, where he discussed his erroneous book The Amateur and deplored Obama’s character and presidency. Klein has previously promoted claims that Obama is Muslim, and has contended that Bill Clinton raped his wife Hillary in his highly contested book, The Truth about Hillary. The Amateur alleges that Obama is ill-suited for the presidency, charging that his temperament and lack of experience make him unqualified to fulfill a role in governance. The book reflects long-standing conservative allegations against Obama, painting a portrait of the president as a Muslim, a closeted socialist and an inept, ungrateful leader.

According to those Klein interviewed, the book contains scenes that did not occur or were immensely misconstrued. Media Matters reports that The Amateur is filled with “lazy research, bad writing, bizarre generalizations…and gossip forwarded by anonymous sources.” But conservatives like Dick Cheney and Schlafly continue to praise Klein as a truth-teller who is unearthing Obama’s true incompetency.

In his interview with Schafly — who believes that “feminists completely control the Obama administration” — Klein assailed Obama’s relationship with feminists and disclosed that Michelle Obama is a domineering wife and the true power holder in the White House, calling Obama “a hen-pecked guy.”

Schafly: You can see he is kind of already in hoc to the feminists.

Klein: Very much so, in hoc to—he married a big, big feminist. Michelle Obama is really the person who wears the pants in the family, and Barack Obama admits to that. He says when they have a difference of opinion he says “Yes Ma’am!” to his wife. He’s a bit of a, you know, a hen-pecked guy, let’s face it. And Michelle is very strong-willed, and Barack I think, surrounds himself with feminists, and people who espouse that, what I would call, extreme feminism, including and up to abortion on demand, paid for by the government, up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

Klein also did not fail to insinuate Obama’s supposed connection with Islam, citing birther Jerome Corsi as a valid source and floated his new “Muslim ring” conspiracy.

Caller: I was wondering about the ring that Obama wore in college, you know the Islamic and Arabic one about there’s only one God but Allah and he’s the only prophet, Mohammed’s the only prophet. Do you know anything about that?

Klein: Well, if you’re asking me that question…I can only tell you that I spoke to Jerome Corsi, who has been the person following this story, breaking this story, and exposing this story. And Jerry Corsi tells me that, he’s been, as you said, wearing this ring since college, and that it does have this Islamic inscription on it. I have not seen the ring, I can’t comment on it.

Schafly and Klein contended that Obama is waging a war on capitalism, alleging that it is Obama’s plan to increase dependence on the government and suppress free market capitalism. Klein warned of Obama’s executive orders, cautioning that if Obama is re-elected, he will have achieved a “Roman Imperial presidency.”

Schlafly: There are people who think he’s following the Frances Fox Piven strategy of breaking the capitalist system by simply loading so many people on welfare and on dependency on government.

Klein: It’s very strange, Phyllis, this debate on whether he’s a socialist or not a socialist, I don’t think, quite frankly, that’s an important debate, what is important is what he’s actually doing. And I think what you’ve just described is what he’s doing—making this country more and more dependent on a central government that is taking over the role of deciding who are the winners and who are the losers…who to back, who do give money to…it is the opposite of what this country is founded on which is free market capitalism.

Schafly: Well, that’s why I called my book No Higher Power, and it applies to a lot of these things…he just thinks the federal government is the last word, and it’s even higher than your conscience, it’s higher than your religious liberty, it’s higher than his issuing executive orders that are a violation of congressional laws, and etc.

Klein: And I think that if he is re-elected, I think that’s going to continue unabated for the next four years. And that could turn this country permanently into something different than what it was before. These executive orders, in violation of congressional laws that you just pointed out, that’s a very dangerous constitutional matter. And I can see this happening more and more if this man is re-elected, kind of a Roman Imperial presidency.

For the second edition of James Dobson’s Family Talk program criticizing the feminist movement with former Focus on the Family vice president Diane Passno, the two fielded questions from an audience of young adults. One young woman asked what they would recommend to a person like herself who is “not ready to be a mom and a wife” but does have career aspirations. Passno, who is promoting her new book that criticizes feminism, told her that it is wonderful she has so many “opportunities that women of my era never had,” seeming to overlook the fact that the tremendous growth in opportunities for women is one of the accomplishments of the feminist movement. But she did caution her that she may only have those career aspirations because of what she hears from her parents and colleagues.

Questioner: What is your advice to young women like myself who—I’m not ready to be a mom and a wife and I have aspirations and I do have longings and hopes and desires to do things, is there a balance for that future? What’s your advice to me now as singles who are built with passions to serve the Lord and to do different things?

Passno: It’s wonderful. You have opportunities that women of my era never had and so I can totally understand when you say ‘I’m really not ready for marriage, I don’t even have a boyfriend and actually I’m really looking forward to taking my education and having a great career.’ My caution to you would be this: career isn’t everything and always use discernment in your professional life. Are you doing what you’re doing because you’re getting plaudits from your parents? From people you went to college with? Are you climbing up the corporate ladder because it’s what you’ve been told is important? Just remember to submit yourself daily to the Lord and He will guide you to where He wants you to be.

As Passno and Dobson later explained, the culture has been inculcated with “lies” from the feminist movement, leaving society with unhappy childless women, immature men, and remorseful feminists.

Dobson: You know what’s happening over and over now is that young women hear this message and they either postpone or decide not to have babies and then at 33 and 34 and 35 they start to panic and they realize they’ve missed an opportunity and it’s getting very late and there are many childless women today who would love to hold a baby and they were sold a lie. I resent the lies that are being told to the young women that are out there because in twenty years they will regret it, many of them will regret it and it will be too late.

Passno: I resent the lies that are fed to the young men as well because we have a generation of men who don’t know what it means to make a commitment, who don’t know what it means to protect a family, who don’t know what it means to cherish a woman and remain pure until marriage. The feminist movement has distorted so many things that were precious and that the Lord said in Scripture were precious.

…

Passno: There are many older feminists who are now looking back at their lives and questioning what they indoctrinated this generation with and they’re questioning it and they’re going ‘maybe I didn’t have all the answers,’ and unfortunately so many of them will never look to Christianity for the answers.

Dobson: And their children are even more confused because they’ve gotten mixed messages and the passion with which the early feminists started has now kind of diminished with time in the present generation.

James Dobson dedicated yet another program on Family Talk to criticizing the “radical feminist movement,” this time interviewing Diane Passno of Focus on the Family, the Religious Right group founded by Dobson. Passno is out with a new book, Feminism: Mystique or Mistake?, which features a foreword by conservative talk show host Janet Parshall. Passno claimed that the feminist movement has “distorted” its Christian past and “is now completely antagonistic to the Christian faith,” and revealed her own unfamiliarity with feminism by arguing that contemporary feminism solely relies upon a “love affair with abortion” and a belief that men are not “necessary.” She told Dobson that women no longer scrutinize “the nonsense that’s being shoved down their throats” and the modern feminist has become “an exact replica of ‘male chauvinist pigs’ of thirty years ago.”

Passno: What’s so tragic about the feminist movement today is that what started as a Christian movement based on Christian principles and the wonderful examples that Jesus gives in Scripture—there’s so many women that are mentioned specifically in Scripture whose lives He touched and whose lives He changed for the better—and a movement that started in that way has become so distorted and is now completely antagonistic to the Christian faith.

Dobson: With a lot of either unintended consequences or consequences that were hidden. The National Organization for Women and what I would call the radical feminist movement really boils down to two issues today; you got them on the tip of your tongue?

Passno: Yes, you can define feminism today really as having two foundational issues. One is abortion, and of course this is a result of their love affair with abortion and so many of our listeners know that and understand that. What is less understood is the fact that what the feminist movement has done it’s gone from wanting equality with men to being a movement that doesn’t think men are really necessary at all.

…

Passno: I’m terribly disappointed in women today and I’m terribly disappointed that they are so quiet about some of the nonsense that’s being shoved down their throats and they swallow it, never question it. As a result, women, feminists today, are an exact replica of male chauvinist pigs of thirty years ago.

The far-right group Concerned Women for America has continued its campaign against the Violence Against Women Act, calling it “a boondoggle for feminists” and alleging that it supports the “homosexual agenda” by ensuring that LGBT victims aren’t turned away from shelters. Republicans in Congress have been working to block reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, even though the law has been a success in helping spouses report domestic abuse and incidences of domestic violence have been on the decline since it was signed into law. The group said in an email:

It is astounding that the left's "war on woman" has some senators afraid to oppose a bad bill simply because it's titled, "The Violence Against Women Act."

This legislation, which is normally a boondoggle for feminists groups, has become even more political this Congress. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), S. 1925, creates new protections for homosexuals. In order to receive federal grants, domestic violence organizations have to agree to embrace the homosexual agenda. It also expands categories of who is eligible to receive services.

These broad definitions actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims. According to Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, VAWA currently does not address the 30 items on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's list of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Further broadening programs dilutes precious help and resources even more.

The Violence Against Women Act spends over $400 million each year. According to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), VAWA fails to ensure that the money being spent is not wasted on ineffective programs. He said that random audits by the Inspector General found repeated irregularities and misconduct, including unauthorized and unallowable expenses in 21 of 22 grants.