Press "Enter" to skip to content

Qanon and How the Deep State Tried To Destroy Us With Our Own Laws (Part 3)

No matter what anyone tells you remember what, Qanon, has said;

They want us divided.

It’s time, and it’s about time our government started listening to, We The People.

As we started this series we revealed how the programs developed within our “welfare reform” of the 1990’s served as the major funding sources used by the states to promote single-parent families. And how clearly we see, the subsidizing of single parent households through private child support systems has had an even greater negative impact on marriage and children as our former publicly funded assistance programs had.

The revelation “Part Two” of the series brought us is that our governments at all levels don’t care who pays child support for child as long as someone does. Even if the responsibility was erroneously assigned to them.

This has now gone on unchecked for over two decades, and the states are not the only guilty parties. Given the state of family law today, maybe it is time to ask Congress what their “sense of” the results welfare reform has had on protecting marriage, the family, fatherhood and what do they plan to do next to try to destroy us?

In the decade following the inception of “welfare reform” and its ugly step sisters, The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA, colloquial: VO-ca, Bill Text), and The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA, colloquial: VA-wa, Bill Text), a significant body of enlightened citizens began demanding change, instead of asking for it.

From a Facebook Post

Going back some fifty years great social riffs began between the genders. They were largely orchestrated, funded and controlled by a facet of the Deep State, that President Trump and Qanon call, the “Clowns In America” (a.k.a. CIA). The Clowns have near total control over the movement we call, “Feminism.” And by all accounts they still have significant control over numerous women’s groups.

Around 1971 a forward thinking woman named, Erin Pizzey sought to provide shelter for the abused; men, women and children. In her wisdom she knew there must separate facilities for the men and women. And so she

Mrs Erin Pizzey, a worker for Woman’s Aid, in an overcrowded home for battered women

built them. Shortly after the completion of the shelters the new Clown funded and controlled “women’s movement” demanded the men’s shelter be closed.

Ms. Pizzey resisted only to have her dog murdered and her children terrorized. The Clown’s Feminists would not cease the violence against Erin Pizzey and her family until she closed the men’s shelter. Why?

From the beginning of the shelter movement to this very day the Clown controlled women’s groups have demanded there be no shelters or health programs for men. Claiming there is no need for men to have any. In spite of the fact that over 40 years of Academic and Scholarly research clearly substantiates that the need for health and emergency support systems is entirely equal between men and women.

This is supported by research, with an aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies that exceeds 370,000. Presented here in an annotated bibliography of some of the research titled,

References Examining Assaults By Women On Their Spouses Or Male Partners:
An Annotated Bibliography”1

Among the concerns that bring about the need for emergency support systems is perpetration. The Clown’s women’s groups had laws passed that let them guide statistics however they needed to indicated men were the primary perpetrators.

Joan Arehart-Treichel’s reports in, “Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence,”2 findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding perpetration of partner violence. The 2001 study shows that half of partner violence is reciprocally violent and that more women than men were responsible for instigating nonreciprocal partner violence, 71 percent to 29 percent respectively.

The CDC study’s lead investigator, Daniel Whitaker, Ph.D., states,

I think the most important is that a great deal of interpersonal violence is reciprocally perpetrated and that when it is reciprocally perpetrated, it is much more likely to result in injury than when perpetrated by only one partner.

Whitaker told Psychiatric News,

the rates we found are similar to those of other studies of late adolescents and young adults, a time period when interpersonal-violence rates are at their highest, these rates demonstrate the magnitude of interpersonal violence as a health and social problem.

Whitaker and his group stressed.

And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious.

Given the findings of empirical studies that show Partner Violence (PV) cases are perpetrated almost equally by the sexes and that half of all the PV cases in our country are reciprocal, the dual arrest rates should be about 50% nationally. However, few states are close to that arrest ratio today. 3

That 2001 CDC study concurs with other CDC studies such as Physical Dating Violence Among High School Students 4, on partner violence, and the four decades of Academic and Scholarly studies. These studies display that women are at least as violent as men, even as teenagers.

The abundance of evidence showing that about half of all domestic violence is reciprocal (mutual in nature, meaning neither party is acting in self-defense) and that men and women actually comprise the largely equal groups. While at times not so much as one cent was allocated for services and support for male victims of partner violence. As shown in a sample set from a Freedom Of Information Act request to the US Department of Justice. 5 (see tables 1, 2 and 3)

From, Aggression and Violent Behavior, A Review Journal,

Forty years of research, social activism and practice in the field of partner violence (PV) have created a certain amount of consensus but have mainly led to controversies6

For example, the The Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women (OVAW) reports that 37% of the victims of domestic violence are male while their own records show that an average of only 7.3% of the funding 7 is applied for male domestic violence victims’ services and housing.

Given the broad acceptance of this double-standard, male victims of domestic violence are often denied service. This has also raised false credibility issues about males alleging domestic violence. And as reported by the Courts;

Many people scoff, for example, at the very idea of a man seeking protection under the domestic violence statute. 8

All victims deserve Equal Justice, Equal Support and Equal Dignity.
That has not happened for male victims of PV.

There is no doubt that escalating instigation of violence by women against men is a serious concern. And with that the OVAW openly violates their constitutional and legal constraints under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 34 U.S. Code §10228(c)(1) and VAWA itself (34 U.S. Code § 12291(b)(8) Nonexclusivity). The laws forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex in the delivery of services funded by the Department of Justice. Yet the OVAW flagrantly violates the law continually.

34 U.S. Code §10228(c)(1) 9
No person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this chapter.

34 U.S. Code § 12291(b)(8) Nonexclusivity 10
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this subchapter.

By completely excluding service to men from four of the eleven programs funded under VAWA and drastically limiting service levels under the other seven, they violate the very federal laws they charged with enforcing by discriminating against men.

Any legislation that benefits one gender at the expense of another or one race at the expense of another is invalid on its face, and it should be rejected. VAWA is an insult to men and to women who value fairness.

Wendy McElroy, The Violence Against Women Act Is An Insult To Fairness 11

So we need to reflect on what Q describes the structure of these systems the Deep State has set upon us.

Rat Bait

False prophets of our time use the same tactic to draw people in. They present a thin veil of truth to obscure their real intent while distracting us from looking deeper into what is before us. VAWA is just another of the myriads of deceptions the Deep State has played us into. The laws promulgated over the past decades are just Rat Bait!

Although these dynamics are common against men, women have not fared well under VAWA either. Though remember the goal of the Deep State Globalists is to destroy us. In the decade following the inception of “welfare reform” a significant body of enlightened citizens began demanding change, instead of asking for it.

In the 1960’s, when the CIA effectively took control of it of the women’s movement, it was changed from a social agenda to a purely political agenda. When VAWA and VOCA came to be they changed shelter movement into a purely ideology based system. Abandoning all principles of social science. And its industrialization drove it to be far more interested in staying in business, than following good practices; both science wise and practicality.

The patterns for female victimization of Intimate Partner Homicides (IPH) followed the national crime statistics trends, as do the men’s. As does Partner Violence (PV) for both genders. There has been no change to these trends for women despite the billions of tax dollars we have wasted on partner violence programs that have little effect, or exacerbate the problem. 12, 13

In the first decade of Globalist social policy under VAWA many relevant scientists were seeing a change for nothing. Keep in mind the social scientists will look for the delta between the trending of the national crime statistics and the year-to-year delta of the IPH/PV. Not just the delta from year-to-year of IPH/PV rates.

We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.
—Angela Moore Parmley, PhD, Department of Justice 14
[emphasis added]

Women that stayed in shelters prior to VAWA were more likely to express honest, heartfelt thanks for their time in the shelter. Post-VAWA, women are increasingly voicing negative opinions of the experience. Even going as far as saying their time in the shelter was worse than the abuse they ran away from.

The following is a sampling of the fraud and abuses witnessed by post-VAWA shelter employees and clients.

  • Criminal background checks for employment are often not done or ignored. Resulting in registered sex-offenders and convicted drug dealers working in the shelters. This includes convicted felons watching the minor children while the mothers are at work or school. Cases show the convicted sex-offenders and/or drug dealers were caught providing drugs and alcohol to the children and/or having sex with the minor children. Yet no legal action is taken against these offenses. While the mothers were not notified of these attacks on their children.
  • Staff, including directors using shelter funds for personal items. Such as clothing, appliances for the homes, personal dwelling remodeling and decorating, throwing lavish parties for friend and employees, vacations and many others.
  • Shelters maintain a “banned” list of residents even when they are the only abuse shelter for several hundred miles. The women can be placed on the banned list for:
    • Personality conflicts and disagreement with staff members.
    • Choosing to try to work things out with their partners.
    • Being suspected of speaking to their partner on the phone.
    • Being the subject of rumors spread through their community after they have left.
  • Permitting and promoting “pandering” of residents and their children into prostitution services, including cases where law enforcement officers were the “pimps.”
  • Residents are required to use clothing allowance grant monies to purchase “dating clothes” to be worn at “Socials” held by the shelter for male financial contributors to the shelter, and the attorneys and law enforcement officers working the residents’ cases.
  • Reports of trafficking women and children through the shelters were also widely reported.
  • Women are threatened with eviction from shelters for disagreement with and refusing to participate in “lesbian experimentation” promoted as “emotional therapy.” (Videos: 1 and 2 NSFW) 15

Feminism and its mechanisms, such as VAWA, CSPIA and Paternity Fraud are functions of the Deep State Globalists’ systems designed to destroy America. Nothing about any of it was meant to be good for us, our families or our nation.

Prominent social scientists knew there was big problems with VAWA early on. And they did voice their concerns to the US Congress. In 2005 the Republicans had a super majority in both houses. They could do whatever they wanted.

But what lit up the issues more than anything was when the Republican controled US Senate Judiciary Committee decided not to let the the scientists from the Department of Justice OVAW, scholarly scientists or scientists within Academia testify at the 2005 reauthorization hearings for VAWA.

Instead the Senate Judiciary Committee chose to have a few female stars from Hollywood and a basketball player to testify in place of the people that run the program and study the results. Then again, who would know better how to satisfy the wants of the Deep State in the Congress than a bunch of famous pedophiles.

The scientists contacted some well known advocates for Equal Justice and explained the dilemma. Supporters of the cause purchased the center of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition for the week of July 11-17, 2005, (page 21).

Everyone teamed up and visited every Republican in Congress’ DC office in person. While there we gave them a copy of the Washington Times National Weekly Edition with our full page ad titled, “VAWA: A four-letter word that means tyranny.”

They were not pleased to see us.

Murray Straus

Things ramped up on both sides. And things did not go well for many of the Patriots. Many of us were attacked directly. Email hacks, IRS trouble and much more. Our attorneys believe some of us are victims of FISA abuses going back to the George W. Bush administration.

But what we did learn was what the Deep State really wanted to use VAWA for and what it does to silence the public and especially scientists.

No one covered the details of what the Deep State was up to with VAWA better than the late Professor Murray A. Straus of the University of New Hampshire’s Family Research Laboratory. Most of what follows comes from his study:

Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence:
Implications for Prevention and Treatment
16 Download The Study Here

If you are ever going to read a study on PV and what VAWA is really doing, read the one listed above by Professor Straus. Do you support Q? Do you know what the Deep State is? And are you aware of the Deep State’s loyalty to the Wicked One; the original serpent, one we call Satan and Devil? If yes to all three then you will have more than your fair of “Ah-Ha” moments reading his 33 page study.

Even if you just scroll through the study and read the headings you will be amazed. Professor Murray Straus may not have known of Q, but he clearly identified the mechanisms of a great danger to our nation. Just as Q does for us.

The Two Major points the Deep State wants to deny and destroy if possible.

  • Denial of Symmetry
  • Denial of Escalation of Female Perpetration

The three major points that make up the Deep State’s VAWA agenda.

  • Focus on Extreme Cases.
  • Defense of [and Expansion of] the Feminist Theory.
  • Protecting Budgets for Services.

The Deep State’s goal is to deny Symmetry in PV exists at all.


The controversy over gender symmetry in PV was fueled by the 1975 National Family Violence Survey, which found a perpetration rate of assault by men partners of 12% and by women partners 11.6% (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006). The rate of severe assaults such as kicking, punching, choking, and attacks with objects was also about the same for men and women (3.8% by men and 4.6% by women). Neither of these gender differences was statistically significant. 17, 18, 19

Explanations of the Denial of Symmetry

Failure to perceive PV by women is part of the explanation for the denial. But much more contributes to the denial, and the concealing and distortion of evidence cannot be attributed just to perceptual limitations. This section suggests four additional explanations for the fact that reputable scholars deny the overwhelming evidence on gender symmetry; including evidence from their own research.


In addition to the concealment and denial to be documented later in this article, another tactic of those who reject the evidence of symmetry in PV has been to claim that the equal perpetration rates do not show symmetry because the motives, context, and meaning of PV by women are different. However, with the extremely important exception of greater adverse effects for women, research has found symmetry in risk factors, motives, context, and meanings.

If the truth hurts your agenda, lie, lie ,lie!


The methods used to conceal and deny the evidence on gender symmetry are detailed in previous articles (Straus, 1990, 2007, 2008a) and will only be summarized here. It is important to recognize that the terms conceal, deny, and distort apply to academics who have produced or know about research evidence that could be concealed, denied, or distorted. Thus, this section refers to the academic community, not to service providers. 20, 21, 22

Method 1: Conceal the Evidence

Perhaps the most frequent method of dealing with the unacceptable evidence that women assault partners at the same or higher rate as men is to conceal the evidence.











Method 2: Avoid Obtaining Evidence on Female Perpetration

Method 3: Selective Citation of Research [cherry picking data]

Both individual researchers and government agencies deny the evidence by citing the few studies that show men’s predominance in PV and do not mention the huge number of studies that have found symmetry.

Method 4: State Conclusions That Contradict the Data

Method 5: Block Publication of Articles That Report Gender Symmetry

Method 6: Prevent Funding of Research to Investigate Female Partner Violence

In December 2005, the National Institute of Justice invited grant proposals to investigate PV and sexual violence. It stated that studies involving men victims are not eligible for funding.[emphasis added]

Method 7: Harass, Threaten, or Penalize Researchers Who Publish Evidence on Gender Symmetry

Because being harassed or penalized is not mentioned in published articles, most of the examples in this section refer to instances in which I have been the target. However, a number of others have experienced similar treatment, and some examples are presented.

The most extreme example was the experience of Susan Steinmetz. When she was at the University of Delaware and was being reviewed for promotion and tenure, there was an organized attempt to block her appointment through unsolicited letters to her department and the university president. They asserted that Steinmetz was not a suitable person to promote because her research showing high rates of women’s perpetration of PV was not believable. In short, they accused her of scientific fraud (Susan Steinmetz, personal communications during the years 1973 to 1988, when we collaborated in research and coauthored two books). An academic version that implies fraud is Pleck and colleagues (1978). Even more extreme, there was a bomb threat at a daughter’s wedding. 23


Media coverage is influenced by many things, including the beliefs and perceptions of reporters and editors and by what they think will sell papers or increase viewers, both of which have led to biased reporting of crime, including PY.


It is time to make the effort to end all family violence, not just violence against women partners, because this is morally and legally necessary and because it is crucial to protect women. This must include PV by women, which is widely viewed as mostly harmless (Greenblat, 1983), because physical injury inflicted by women is more rare than physical injury inflicted by men (Stets & Straus, 1990). On the contrary, even when attacks by women result in no physical injury, ending PV by women is a basic prevention step to reduce violence against women and all other humans. The research shows that this so-called harmless violence by women because a meta-analysis by Stith and colleagues (2004) found that a woman’s perpetration of violence was the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence.
, 25, 26 [emphasis added]

Finally, there are two important recognitions of gender symmetry that are likely to portend further change. The first is a legal rejection of the explicit or implicit statutory and administrative definition of domestic violence as occurring only against women, such as California statute H&S 124250, which restricted funding of services to women victims: … The California Court of Appeal (2008) ruled on October 14, 2008. that this provision is unconstitutional and ordered state-funded services to be made available to men victims.

The second recognition of gender symmetry that is likely to portend further change is a change in the academic community signified by the inauguration of this journal and by a growing number of articles and books that recognize the importance of gender symmetry in PV … These changes signal a process that will ultimately end the current pattern of denying gender symmetry and will contribute to reducing all types of interpersonal violence, including violence against women.

The other points in the bullet list are best covered by reading Professor Straus’ study itself. And rather than fill up the entire piece pasting the study into it, I will cover some personal interactions this author had with Professor Straus. Where he covered issues we don’t see in studies, yet.

During the time the team of Equal Justice advocates were visiting Republicans, in vain, a couple of us had the pleasure of doing a radio show with Professor Murray Straus. Along with some women who were turning state’s evidence of fraud and human trafficking in the abuse shelters. It was broadcast live on AM Radio in California. Then later rebroadcast in the greater Washington DC area.

Murray Straus pointed out that the extreme cases of PV account for only 6 to 7 percent of all cases restraining orders are issued through. While the huge majority of cases were dealt with by private attorneys in divorce and custody cases. No ER, no Police and no shelters were involved; just restraining orders. The preponderance of those orders had no finding of abuse! Estimates show that as much as 40% of adult males have been under a restraining order that either had no finding of abuse, the claim found to be false but the order was issued anyway, plaintiff did not appear but the order was issued anyway and for non-violent reasons the order was issued anyway. So why was a restraining order ordered?

To usurp the Second Amendment under the guise of protection from abuse!

Making VAWA a gun grab program in disguise.

Professor Straus was most upset at the hired spokespersons from Hollywood who were presenting the complete reverse of the truth. They were telling Judiciary Committee staffers that over 95% of the restraining order issuing cases were horror stories and only about 4 or 5 percent of cases involved custody or divorce. The complete reverse of the truth.

Yes, they did testify falsely in the reauthorization hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee with the same untrue numbers. No one in Congress cared. It was all planned by the Deep State, or as some members of Q Army Japan calls it, “The Great Conspiracy.”

We also covered how VAWA is in the civil codes at the Federal level, not in the criminal codes. And is so in most states. Texas is of the few notable exceptions were PV is a crime. Though the courts push as many cases as they can into civil court, even in Texas; as we saw in the video in “Part 1” of this series.

Two other key points they were covered in the Radio show.

First, these restraining order cases are civil causes, and receiving the paperwork is called, “Service.” But these services are listed in most of the states’ databases as criminal arrests. These totally inaccurate listings that are issued are costing defendants in PV cases their children, jobs, housing, Second Amendment Rights, and more. Second, many attorneys insist this arrangement is tantamount to trying criminal cases in the Chancery. Which the states’ use to deny evidentiary hearings and totally negates the right to due process of law to defendants.

We have covered the background of a deep-rooted battle against the mechanisms of Satan’s Deep State. We are now able to see how history is about to repeat itself. Several long-standing Equal Justice advocates are trying to get the needs of men covered, again. First and foremost requiring guarantee of evidentiary hearings, protection for due process and prosecution for false claims of assault (including sexual) must be included in the current reauthorization of VAWA (H.R.1585 – Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019).

While early in the process the staffers, notably female, of our Republican Senators are blocking men’s entrance into the dialog about VAWA. This author contacted my state Representative and was referred my local office a few blocks from home. The women at the office actually told me I was in the wrong building. A few days later a few female Patriots went to that office and were cheerfully admitted and given the full Satanic Feminist indoctrination speech about why VAWA is critical to the future of womanhood. This was in a Republican’s office.

Meanwhile a group of female Equal Justice Patriots in New Mexico attended a Democratic Women’s gathering. Where they heard speakers explain to the women how the next version of “VAWA will end courts trials in rape cases.” Meaning the end of due process and evidentiary hearings for sexual assault allegations. This fits the observations of many conservatives and moderate Republicans throughout the country. It is plain and simple, VAWA is a prime example of a weaponized law. As are CSPIA, PRWORA and most others of their vintage.

As shown through decades of research the needs are largely equal between men and women. It is time to rename VAWA into something inclusive, such as the “Partner Violence Act.” Furthermore, assurances of full Constitutionality and the end of junk sciences, especially in the area of sexual assault are imperative. And the divisiveness inherent in the current system is a true threat to our nation. That makes the case that VAWA should just be repealed altogether and sent back to the States where it belongs. And if none of that happens we have the wrong people in office at the state and Federal level.

At times the Deep State’s activity looks like a mass incarceration competition. Complete with mandatory arrest laws. One faction drives the system that took us “From Welfare State to Police State.” 27 While others work their systems to take us down hard. All to see who can create the most peons for the States to exploit.

It is an amazing time to be alive, even if frightening to many. We see people throughout the world working together on the same digs in amazing synchronicity! So I repeat what one woman in Korea states plainly.

Referring to Korea as one united nation, this translates to:

If America falls, the world falls into Satan’s grips! (NWO, Deep State, Illuminati) We must realize that the revival of the United States is directly related to the survival of our country.

The Q followers around the world are telling us, America, that we are the last hope for the survival of Humanity.

What we reviewed today is in no way a social policy. It is an attack from within, designed to destroy us. That has too much support from brainwashed people that believe it is somehow a benefit system. Well we are at war with a shadow government, the Deep State. And more people than you might know are facing real danger.

Simply put, every law passed by the Deep State was weaponized against us. Every one of them.

We may be winning, but its not over yet. Nor has the Deep State’s escalation leveled off. These people are in dire panic and are following a scorched earth policy. And even after the war is over, we have a huge legal mess to clean and correct. So plan on working on it for the foreseeable future.

Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags.
~ Erin Pizzey, who began the shelter for the abused movement in 1971

In the next part we will cover how Medicaid was weaponized to collapse our economy. And we were less than a year away from that when Donald J. Trump was elected President.

Remember that Qanon tells us that,

The End Won’t Be For Everyone

and this stuff is still the easier things to come to terms with.

Cheers, anon

Previous: Qanon and How the Deep State Tried To Destroy Us With Our Own Laws (Part 2)


1 Martin S. Fiebert, References Examining Assaults By Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography, California State University, Long Beach, Department of Psychology, November 2012,

2 Joan Arehart-Treichel, Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence, PsychiatryOnline, August 03, 2007,

3 Hirschel, D. et el., Explaining the Prevalence, Context, and Consequences of Dual Arrest in Intimate Partner Cases, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, April 2007, Document No.: 218355,

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Physical Dating Violence Among High School Students — United States, 2003, 55(19);532-535, May 19, 2006,

5 RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, RADAR Request Reveals VAWA Usage Data by Sex, (see tables 1, 2 and 3)

6 Zvi Eisikovits, Zeev Winstok, Current Controversies on the Role of Gender in Partner Violence, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 277-360 (July–August 2011),

7 Ibid. en 4. (See Table 3)

8 PA Supreme Court Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System, Final Report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System (Chapter 10 page 398);

9 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 34 USC § 10228(c)(1). The law states, “No person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this chapter.” The penalties for violating these requirements are described in 34 USC § 10228 (c)(2).

10 Violence Against Women Act, 34 USC § 12291 (b)(8) Nonexclusivity “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this subchapter.”

11 Wendy McElroy, Research Fellow, Independent Institute, (2018), OPINION: The Violence Against Women Act Is An Insult To Fairness, The Daily Caller. December 07, 2018 12:45 PM ET,

12 Catalano S. Homicide trends in the U.S: Intimate homicide. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 2006. (See Tables 4 and 5)

13 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1987-2006. (See Table 5)

14 Parmley A. Violence against Women Post VAWA. Violence Against Women Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004. p. 1424.

15 Canada Court Watch Program: Video One – A mother speaks about how she and other residents in the women’s shelter were psychologically and sexually abused by the women’s shelter workers, March 2, 2008 (Approx running time 45 minutes), Two: The message given to this woman was give sex to the workers or get out, March 16, 2008 (Approx running time 60 minutes),

16 Straus, Murray. (2010). Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment. Partner Abuse. 1. 332-362. 10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332. Download Study Here

17 Gelles, R., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster.

18 Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.

19 Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor Books.

20 Straus, M. A. (1990). The National Family Violence Surveys. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 3-16). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

21 Straus, M. A. (2007). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 13, 227-232.

22 Straus, M. A. (2008a). Bucking the tide in family violence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 9(4),191-213.

23Pleck, E., Pleck, J. H., Grossman, M., & Bart, P. B. (1978). The battered data syndrome: A comment on Steinmetz’ article. Victimology International Journal, 2, 680-684.

24 Greenblat, C. S. (1983). A hit is a hit is a hit … or is it? Approval and tolerance of the use of physical force by spouses. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families (pp. 235-260). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

25 Stets, J. K, & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting of marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

26 Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1),65-98.

27 Baskerville, Stephen, From Welfare State to Police State, The Independent Review, v. XII, n. 3, Winter 2008, ISSN 1086–1653, Copyright © 2008, pp. 401–422

Tables and Charts:

Table 1

A description of these programs can be found on pp. 16-18 of


Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Breaking News: