By Robert G. Leclair

The multibillion-dollar governmental program, Violence Against Women Act, better known as VAWA, needs a thorough reform if women, men, and children want to be
protected.  I am a staunch supporter of protecting women, thus the reason for writing these articles and attempting to get through to Congress.  Three years ago, my
daughter became a victim of domestic violence.  I guided her through the process and identified many of the judicial flaws.  In her case, I feared the judge’s decision
more than I feared the perpetrator.  My daughter’s plight ended successfully, but this was not in any way due to this horrific process.

I believe that until VAWA is redefined and OVW, the Office on Violence Against Women, is dismantled and restructured, the gender war will continue unabated and\
more innocent lives will go unprotected and abandoned.  The lack of reform will continue to endanger a vast number of children who have found themselves caught in the
middle.  The fatherless society will grow and plague a greater number of children.

We must start with rewriting and restructuring VAWA and OVW if our main goal is being sincere about eliminating domestic violence and protecting women.  
For the past several years the main goal of protecting women from violence and abuse appears to have taken a back seat to the empowerment of women.
This new goal is excellent and needed but not if it siphons billions of dollars from the war on domestic violence.

Political Hypocrisy and Deceit is Rampant and Destructive

Radical feminism infiltrated our political system in the 1990’s and fell into the same trap that our politicians were mired in: power and greed.  The radical feminists’ agenda and ideology
have since then played a major part in framing and endorsing VAWA and influencing the policies and procedures established by OVW.

Billions of tax dollars were spent over the past two decades by OVW to wage a war against violence and abuse of women.  Recently, federal dollars allocated to OVW has jumped to over
1.5 billion dollars per year to support this endeavor.  Over the past two decades, OVW has spawned, helped organize and awarded federal grants to more
than five thousand
non-profit organizations to support and promote its policies, procedures and agenda throughout the United States.  The two major policies were “100% “arrests” and
“no drop” both of which were disputed by privately funded studies for failing to protect women.

Bill Clinton

During the 1998 impeachment process of Bill Clinton, many of the influential radical feminists who support him were extensively quoted in the press, showing undaunted contempt for those
who were attempting to throw him out of office.  In 1994, politicians and public citizens were told that violence and abuse of women reached an epidemic level and that
VAWA was necessary in order to protect women and children from violence and abuse; however, the public did not anticipate or believe that the enactment of VAWA
would be hijacked by the radical feminist movement.

During the impeachment process of Bill Clinton in 1998 radical feminists publicly voiced their support for his presidency and campaign against impeachment despite his sexual exploits and scandal.
The radical feminist statements (
destruction of families) clearly revealed why radical support helped Bill remain in office.  The hypocrisy and deceit of this radical support was very apparent and
showed appreciation for the Clinton/Biden efforts to enact the 1994 VAWA and establish OVW.

Gloria Steinem, a leading radical feminist, summed up the hypocrisy when she stated, “Clinton should be censured for lying under oath about Lewinsky in the Paula Jones deposition,
perhaps also for stupidity in answering at all.”  She also stated she “felt feminists spoke for the majority of Americans in saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was no one’s business if there was no ‘coercion,
harassment or violence’.  When Monica testified, she was very clear that she wanted and initiated this relationship.  We have to listen to what women say.”

This feigned support for Clinton was hypocritical and deceitful because most women deplored his sexual exploits.  Since the Biden/Clinton campaign and authorization of the VAWA and OVW
in 1994 is a Quid Pro Quo for the staunch support of the radical feminist movement, nobody should be surprised that VAWA was hijacked and reflected a radical ideology.  How long did this
Quid Pro Quo sustain the radical feminist movement and VAWA?  It lasted well into 2020 and still ongoing during the
2020 Presidential Election.

Follow the money trail in Bill Clinton’s Executive Orders that granted new programs and funds to OVW for an approach that espoused the radical feminist ideology of promoting the false
patriarchal theory whereby all men were perpetrators and all women were victims.

In recent 2017-2018 news coverage many democrats said that the Bill Clinton sexual exploits should have warranted his resigning from the presidency.  
Democrat senator and lawyer Jill Gillibrant went as far as to state that Bill under today’s standard would be asked to resign by the Democratic Party for his sex deviancy.  
In 1998, radical feminists like Jill stated that it was not an impeachable offense and that Clinton should not resign because of his exemplary position on women’s issues.

The hypocrisy and deceit that currently exists in 2018 is the result of radical feminists giving Bill Clinton a pass, enabling him to continue as president for several more years.  These additional years
empowered OVW to  establish a misguided and failed war on domestic violence.  More importantly it allowed the court process to continue granting civil restraining orders for allegations of domestic violence
crimes without due process or the standard of innocent until proven guilty.  Civil restraining orders for almost three decades have been granted on the basis of a “better safe than sorry” or “it’s
better to err on the side of safety” approach.  As unbelievable as it sounds, it’s an indisputable fact that judges base most of their decisions to grant civil retraining orders to women 99% of the time on
such an arbitrary basis.  Why?  Two major reasons:

1.   Many judges have been censured by higher courts for lecturing to women even though they granted the restraining order and
2.   For the following reason expressed by many judges

Attorney Charles Bowser, who for three years sat as a judge in family court, said in a Boston Herald article about his decisions on restraining orders:
“I didn’t want to wake up in the morning and find my name in the paper as the judge who did not grant a restraining order in a case where someone was indeed harmed.  In the first instance,
you err on the side of caution and grant the order.  But you never really know what the truth is until you conduct an evidentiary hearing, and sometimes they take a long time to schedule.”

From the Mass Bar Association newsletter June /July 1993 President's Message entitled "Speaking the Unspeakable": “The facts have become irrelevant.  Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to
vacate are granted to virtually all who apply, lest anyone be blamed for an unfortunate result.  As one judge patiently told me when I appeared in opposition to an extension of an order to
vacate,  "You don't understand. I have to grant these". (Quote from a female lawyer)

Even now in 2020, OVW’s tax funding is more than 1.4 billion per year and partially supports hundreds of nonprofits.  Also, OVW to this day still embraces the judicial restraining order courts
that process over 1.5 million allegations of domestic violence a year and grants 99% of them without due process and on a better safe than sorry standard.
Donald Trump

In 2016 and 2017, President Donald Trump was attacked by the same feminists that gave a pass to Clinton in 1998.  Trump’s lewd and lecherous talk on a televised tape cannot be condoned, especially
knowing the affect it has on children, much like Bill Clinton’s TV address.  However, radical feminist leaders and OVW did not agree that these comments should have been dismissed as what some
called, “locker room talk.”  However, these radical feminists are hypocritical for supporting Bill Clinton for very similar offensive behavior.

Compare Gloria Steinem’s quotes about Bill Clinton in 1998 to the present quotes about Donald Trump:  “Trump believes in nothing.  The key to him is that he will lash out against any criticism,
however small, and he will follow any praise wherever it goes.  He has no idea what the facts are.  I do not underestimate the danger of having a crazy person at the levers of power.  The only
other good outcome I can think of is maybe people will [be less accepting of] the U.S. as an intrusive presence in the world.”

Donald Trump’s lewd and lecherous talk on a televised tape cannot be condoned even if it were to be considered “locker room talk” and the effect it has on children cannot be discounted.
Radical feminist leaders and OVW are justified in their attack on Trump’s audio tape but were highly hypocritical and deceitful for supporting Bill Clinton’s similar but far more offensive behavior. The
individual(s) who apparently took advantage of an open mike and publicly released the tape recording must assume greater responsibility for adversely affecting the children
in this country than Trump. The reason is simple…Trump thought that his conversation was private whereas those who released the tape knew what they were doing and were willing to
sacrifice millions of children to expose Trump.

More Hypocrisy

The hypocrisy and deceit lie with the radical feminists and the Office of Violence Against Women who have waged the war on domestic violence based on the false ideology that domestic violence is
caused by a patriarchal society.  The radical ideology assumes that all men are perpetrators of domestic violence and all women are victims.  This is an insult to the fathers whose only crime was an
up bringing that taught them to respect women and that they should be the bread winners of the family.  This role has of course changed over time but this respect for women by a vast number of
men and fathers has not.

The war on domestic violence waged by the Office of Violence Against Women and the need to drastically reform its approach and structure has never been addressed on the same level as other
issues dealt with in the 2016 election:  such as the economy, ISIS, and national security.  However, because of the downward-spiraling effect of domestic violence and the failure of OVW’s approach
on America’s families and the millions of children, it must be elevated and addressed at a top priority level.


The conclusion to this first article is intentionally short (for more see Collateral Damage).  Hillary Clinton wrote a must-read article on “Domestic Violence is a Crime”.  
See if you agree that the article is hypocritical and contains deceitful facts. From 1979 to 2020 the court process for issuing Protection Orders for allegations of domestic violence was not based on
due process nor was innocent until proven guilty the standard. Truthfully, the constitution was completely ignored in the civil restraining order process. Anywhere from 1 to 2 million applications for
restraining orders are filed each year and all applications allege criminal acts of domestic violence or abuse.  The number of applications filed by women is 80-85% and 99% are
indiscriminately granted by the courts. The basis for granting an order was either based on a judge’s opinion or mainly on a “better safe than sorry or it is better to err on the side of safety”
approach due process was knowingly bypassed in civil restraining orders.