Thanks.
Juris Contemptus
On the evening of October 2, 2008, Senator Joe Biden debated Governor Sarah Palin at Washington University in St. Louis. This sole matchup of the VP candidates was designed to measure their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, it was yet another opportunity for Biden to expose his ideological and unconstitutional bias towards women. He didn’t disappoint.
Among other accomplishments, Biden bragged to Palin that he had authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No response from Palin. No response from moderator Gwen Ifill. But, that’s not surprising. Have you ever heard — just once — any law professor, politician, or talkshow host publicly challenge Joe Biden on this pernicious, misandrist, unlawful legislation-turned-industry? Never: invented rights for women are off the table.
VAWA is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which mandates that no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Accordingly, there is nothing — nothing — in the Constitution, expressed or implied, giving women any preferences over men. Yet, VAWA does exactly that: it provides domestic-violence protections and benefits exclusively to women. This is hypocrisy, pandering, and juris contemptus; amazingly, Americans accept it.
Joe Biden, who teaches a seminar in constitutional law at Widener University School of Law, professes to believe in the Equal Protection Clause, as evidenced by this exchange with Gwen Ifill about gay rights:
GWEN IFILL: The next round of — pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?
JOE BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair. It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
Psychological Demons
So, if Joe Biden believes the Equal Protection Clause is valid for gays, why does he not believe it valid for heterosexual men whose wives and girlfriends punch them? Because Joe Biden grew up with an abusive sister who was allowed to hit him at any time with impunity. He internalized her abuse and somehow grew to see men as villains.
Frankly, I don’t care about Biden’s psychological demons; I do, however, care about his power as a US senator to use those demons to write laws — in concert with his legislative, judicial, and executive colleagues — that destroy my rights. His desire and ability to ignore the Constitution, when he sees fit, makes him a danger to all men.
Senator Biden is not alone in turning a blind eye to female-on-male violence. Recently, I appeared on a Dallas radio talkshow to discuss this topic — because of Macy’s misguided misandry campaign. A male caller berated me for not being man enough to take punches from women. That’s what many boys, including Joe Biden, are taught. Consequently, this double standard is reinforced endlessly in TV sitcoms and movies, where it is common and acceptable for women to hit and assault men.
America perversely believes that men hitting women is tragical while women hitting men is comical — even trivial. America is wrong, and Joe Biden is wrong. The Equal Protection Clause represents that hitting is wrong, regardless of who throws the punch.
Judicial Philosophy
Joe Biden exposed more of himself to Sarah Palin in this exchange with Gwen Ifill near the debate’s end:
GWEN IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue — and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year — can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?
JOE BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties. And so that — that — that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that’s why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it. But I did change on that, and — and I’m glad I did.
Once again, Joe Biden exposed himself and his personal agenda of giving consent only to judicial appointments who espouse his ideology and judicial philosophy, who will write opinions he likes.
Judges are supposed to be apolitical and stick to interpreting law as written. But, Joe Biden sees the US Constitution as a political document that he can use to further his causes. So far, nobody has stopped him.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
The voters of Delaware can’t get enough of Joe Biden, and they keep reelecting him as proof. But, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to put him in the White House.
Ask any cop who gets a 911 call for domestic violence. He’ll tell you that, regardless of who threw the punch, in most cases the man is going to jail. If the cops discover afterwards that the woman’s accusation was false, they will NOT prosecute her. When you ask yourself how that can be, think Joe Biden.
Joe Biden exposed himself to Sarah Palin and, once again, to the rest of us. Worse, he’ll get to do more of it because America likes his perversion of justice against men. Does this include you?
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality and author of 90+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2008 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(10 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Denis said,
Class-struggle between men and women.
Class-struggle between mothers and fathers.
Class-struggle between mortgage borrowers who got in over their heads and banks who were enticed by the U.S. Congress with the prospect of selling MBS to Fannie May and Freddie Mac that were insured by the Federal government (translation: taxpayers).
Class-struggle between gay and straight.
Clas-struggle between black and white.
Class-struggle between the well off and everyone else.
On and on.
Joe Biden is always looking for a new case of class-struggle to act upon.
And in every case, Joe Biden wants the majority to bend to the demands of the latest special interest group.
And in every case, Joe Biden wants the taxpayers to pay.
Joe Biden’s entire life and career is about believing that someone or some group is getting screwed-and everybody else has to change-and to pay-to make that someone or group whole.
There are two kinds of people in America:
Those who pull the wagon. These people, work, create, and fund the government.
And those who sit in the wagon. These people want something from the government-and ultimately from those who pull the wagon.
This Marxist entitlement thinking has been spread throughout America for decades via feminism. No wonder Gwen Ifill kept her mouth shut. Many powerful men, such as Joe Biden, are largely responsible for this. And American men sat by for decades and let it happend.
I am watching my country disappear before my eyes, as it appears that the number of people sitting in the wagon is much bigger than those who pull the wagon.
A Obama-Biden Administration will probably mark the point in history for future historians, when America’s ascendency finally ended. This class-struggle thinking and the resulting entitlement mentality will only accelerate even faster under a Obama-Biden admisitration.
I truly believe that this country is in very deep trouble because of the kind of people we Americans have become, and that it’s best days are behind it.
October 3, 2008 at 11:17 am
Squiggy said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:32 am
Roger F. Gay said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:02 am
Robert Stevens said,
Oh,it will take years and when we reform the system we will have to get rid of hundreds of Joe Biden types and will have to make an example out of a lot of women.
We will have to hold women accountable and that is likely to be painful for them. However once we bring the situation under control and we restore the lawful balance, that should existe, we will have a good system.
October 4, 2008 at 7:59 am
amfortas said,
And while we are thinking of specialist attention for him there’s the matter of a speech therapist for Palin. The debate made it onto TVs in Australia and after it I discovered that the paint had been stripped from my window frames.
(Note, Squiggy - re ‘mobile’ - agreed.)
October 4, 2008 at 10:20 pm
poiuyt said,
MRAs cannot forget the powerlessness and impotence of that malignant-parasite creed of womanist-liberalism. That is its impotence without its supporting cadre of elite and leading males residing in all existing poliical parties !
Because to do so would mean that our movement looses contituent members whom would have otherwise made their presence felt as MRAs in their chosen parties against those elite leading males, if we focus on the rightousness of parties instead of peoples gender. That is, the mens movement looses insider activists on account of their political affiliation if, insted of acknowledging ourselves as a one class gender of activists, we persist to believe in good or not good parties.
It cannot be the case that only Conservativism or Liberal-Socialism or libertarianism qualifies a person for “true” membership of the mens movement. Our counter-revolution back to an appropriately conservative and moraly grounded society, is not preserved to be within the special remit of any one of the existing political parties alone !
The big fool of our day, is that man whom is deceived into a fervent and blind defence of any one of the existing political parties as “true mens saviour”, all of which however, in tandem and guilt, have brought about the very society that humiliates and belittles him for his maleness.
It is noteable that non of the genderised institutions of the liberal feminist revolution, giving such dupeworthy men of the existing parties a good shafting, ever asked what political party they supported. The question was always what is your gender? and not what is your party?.
So a man of average intelligence must first answer of himself the following questions, prior to jumping to conclusions, either way, regarding the origins of his bad treatment in this society :
1- Did that family court judge seizing your children, depriving your son of your living presence in his life, ever ask you “what is your party affiliation ?” No he didnt. It was enough that you were, and are male, a member of the cheap and self encheapening gender !
2- Did that policeman troop, forcing their way into your home in order to evict you on account of the say so of this or that woman in your life, ever ask you “what is your party affiliation ?” No they didnt. It was enough that you were and are male, a member of the acceptably ill-used and bruised gender !
3- Did the child support enforcement officers whom garnished your wages and or seized money out of your bank accounts, in order to pass on to a victim-parasite, ever ask you “what is your party affiliation ?” No they didnt. It was enough that you were and are male, a member of the appropriately enslaved gender, whose wages are only earned for others to live well off on!
4- Did the legislative delegate of either or any other party, voting away your and your sons constitutional, civil and human rights protections, ever ask you “what is your party affiliation ?” No they didnt. It was enough that you were and are males, members of the gender on whoms diminished status they have all gained so much power and social prestige. All by consent if you can even imagine it !
So a half sane man, if he is ever to be aroused from his romanticised stupor concerning any of the existing parties, must know this of his society: It is his gender and not his party affiliation that determines his perceived morality or immorality, his potential freedom or unfreedom, his accepted standing and status versus his potential diminishment and belittlement. He is not accepted to be human unless he is working against himself, his own interests and his own gender. A thing which leading and elite males of the land in all the existing political parties have understood and exploited well.
This is the thing we are fighting as members of the same movement of emancipation. This counter-revolutionary mens movement. We are not simply fighting mere political parties.
October 4, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
October 5, 2008 at 6:11 am