Skip to main content

He's an expert on ... stuff
While we here in the civilized world were happy to see President Barack Obama sign into law the Violence Against Women Act, Rush Limbaugh—who is certainly the nation's foremost expert on, um .... no, not that ... not that ... um ... Oh! On Dominican prostitutes and illegal use of pills for limp dicks—reported on his show that it's all a big scam.
The president of the United States has just signed another law, and this law is the Violence Against Women Act. No, no, it means you can't. It's not—it doesn't permit it. It's against violence. You can't, you can't be violent. I guess you could, up until the law was—I guess it used to be okay to be violent against women, but now we've fixed it. Because now we have a law. Because Obama just signed it. The Violence Against Women law. I don't have the act right in front of me, but I can guarantee you, it's about much more than violence against women. You see, it's classic. It's classic. Somebody proposes this thing, under the guise that women are being beat to a pulp in this country because of the Republican War on Women. Women are being beat up, they're being creamed, they're being mistreated all over the place. So we need a federal law saying you can't do it anymore.

So now the Democrats get all of this credit for being compassionate, tolerant, understanding, protective of women. The whole idea is to create the notion that there's some people out there that are violent toward women, and they're obviously a bunch of neanderthal Republicans, and we're going to now be able to punish them.

And Obama [unintelligible] this law will help bring more offenders to justice. So I guess there were outs, so you go out and be violent toward women, I guess there were ways you could get away with it that now you can't. Cause we've really gotten serious about it now.

Sigh. Where to begin? Maybe with a quick history lesson. See, President Obama and the Democrats didn't cook up this bill to humiliate the Republicans for their ongoing War on Women. Republicans do that just fine on their own. This act has been law for nearly two decades and, except for the latest obstructionist hissy-fit from Republicans, it has always been reauthorized with broad bipartisan support.

Second, while it obviously really chaps Rush's pill-popping ass that Democrats might "get credit for being compassionate, tolerant, understanding, protective of women," House Republicans are trying like hell to give themselves credit too. Many of them—27 to be exact—have even gone so far as to claim they supported and voted for the Violence Against Women Act, when they voted against it.

And while we could spend all day—heck, all year—fact-checking the bile that spews out of Rush's mouth, let's just look at one more little inconvenient fact he apparently isn't aware of, as he so casually mocks victims of violence and insists there is just no way women are being victimized, you know, regularly, so we obviously don't really need this law. Here, here's something right out of today's headlines:

The Justice Department says the rate of sexual violence against women and girls age 12 or older fell 64 percent in a decade and has remained stable for five years.

In 2010, women and girls nationwide experienced about 270,000 rapes or sexual assaults, compared with 556,000 in 1995, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey released Thursday.

So yes, Rush, women are being beaten and raped and assaulted every day. Lots of them. But you know what has helped bring those numbers down? The Violence Against Women Act, which, thankfully is once again the law of the land.


Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:54 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site