Liberals are curiously less than rapturous about a political victory only they could have accomplished: the election of Donald Trump, a living caricature straight from the pages of a satirical novel, to the country’s highest office. Liberals do count as a victory, and have for a long time, laws that authorize the wholesale removal of citizens from their homes by armed agents of the state based on what may amount to nothing more substantive than finger-pointing.

In this writer’s opinion, they’re the same victory.

Since the advent of the restraining order in the 1970s, and particularly since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994—under the auspices of which billions of federal tax dollars have been poured into state courts and police precincts to condition how judges and law enforcement officials respond to complaints of abuse—the priority in the U.S. has been to curtail evidentiary requirements and due process rights to expediently meet political expectations, expectations inspired by liberal feminist politicking.

With typical dramatic irony, liberals today vehemently denounce immigration policies that divide family members who have entered the country illegally, that is, in plain violation of the law. Meanwhile the separation of accused citizens from their families, citizens who have not, in a majority of cases, been proven to have violated any laws, continues to quietly transpire, as it has for decades. Attorney Liz Mandarano posits that “[t]here are between 2 and 3 million temporary restraining orders issued in the United States annually,” and attorney Gregory Hession, a vocal critic of protective order laws, observes that “500,000 children are right now in the custody of the state” (“an astounding number”).

Liberals consider conservatives “dumb” yet fail to perceive that alienation of such a broad swathe of the populace could inspire contempt for their values if not a raw animal loathing for everything they represent. Liberals adduce (and Twitter-reinforce) preposterous and hackneyed theories to explain disenchantment with their positions like resistance to progress and a longing to return to the days of “patriarchy.”

The author of this post has recently examined criticisms by NYU Journalism Prof. Katie Roiphe of #MeToo feminists’ disregard for due process (for which she has been excoriated almost everywhere but in the National Review, which called her criticisms courageously commonsensical). Prof. Roiphe has similarly qualmed about the extrajudicial “rape trials” of male college students. Even she, however, seems to assume that if the merits of “abuse” complaints are decided in a courtroom, then defendants have been afforded due process of law.

The assumption is understandable but ignorant of the legal standards and the practical ones that have come to inform how civil claims of abuse are adjudicated, claims that affect the lives of millions of American citizens every year.

It’s a truism of language that the meanings of words follow usage. Applied poorly, language degrades. Rights are no different, which is something our “educated” class should already know.

On a scale our government disdains to even calculate, citizens are denied both rights and dignity, besides in many cases family, property, and liberty, in the absence of determinate evidence, which is not, in any case, heard by a jury. Liberals, who often “identify” as humanist, say they simply deplore insensitivity.

The only thing more hateful to voters than a hypocrite is a party of hypocrites who support arbitrary attacks on citizens in their own homes.

Copyright © 2018 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com