Need *IMMEDIATE* Action by Everyone!

[Admin]

Guys,

Read this proposed bill VERY carefully. It has already passed the House - and is set for a vote in the Senate on Monday. If you find any part of this bill objectionable, you have only two days to contact your Senators and make your feelings known. Note particularly paragraph 4 - which authorizes $63 Million to "encourage arrest."

It is a very long radical feminist spending bill for $430 Million and includes appropriations for many departments, agencies, state and local governments.  There is $1M planned to be awarded to Tahirih Justice Center.  Probably the $1M is included in the $205M for women's shelters, or the $3M for stalking prevention, or the $10M for protection for college women from violence or the $63M to encourage arrest policies.  This part of the bill is obscene.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION PROGRAMS

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (`the 1968 Act'); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (`the 1994 Act'); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) (`the 1990 Act'); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-21); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386) (`the 2000 Act'); and the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162) (`the 2005 Act'); $430,000,000 (increased by $10,000,000), including amounts for administrative costs, to remain available until expended as follows:

(1) $12,000,000 for the court-appointed special advocate program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act.

(2) $3,000,000 for child abuse training programs for judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by section 222 of the 1990 Act.

(3) $205,000,000 for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 101 of the 2005 Act, of which--

(A) $20,000,000 shall be for transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 602 of the 2005 Act; and

(B) $2,000,000 shall be for the National Institute of Justice for research and evaluation of violence against women.

(4) $63,000,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 102 of the 2005 Act.

(5) $10,000,000 for sexual assault victims assistance, as authorized by section 202 of the 2005 Act.

(6) $40,000,000 (increased by $10,000,000) for rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 203 of the 2005 Act.

(7) $6,000,000 for training programs as authorized by section 40152 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 108 of the 2005 Act, and for related local demonstration projects.

(8) $3,000,000 for grants to improve the stalking and domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 109 of the 2005 Act.

(9) $10,000,000 for grants to reduce violent crimes against women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the 2005 Act.

(10) $40,000,000 for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 103 of the 2005 Act.

(11) $5,000,000 for enhancing protection for older and disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault, as authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 205 of the 2005 Act.

(12) $15,000,000 for the safe havens for children program, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 306 of the 2005 Act.

(13) $8,000,000 for education and training to end violence against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized by section 1402 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 204 of the 2005 Act.

                        (14) $10,000,000 for an engaging men and youth in prevention program, as authorized by the 2005 Act.

[Admin]

Talking Points for those who call:

1. Congress does not have, as an enumerated power, the right to deal with domestic violence in individual families nor does it have, as an enumerated power, the right to mess with private communications between a man and a woman.

2. IMBRA takes away the right of foreign women to decide their own level of security. Women without email often request to be phoned or telegrammed or get paper mail. No law should stop this from happening, but IMBRA does precisely that because it is impossible to send a background check for signature over the phone and it would take forever to do this via snail mail. In addition, they refuse to be called “mail order brides” and the US government needs to stop using that term ASAP.

3.   IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It causes excessive delays in communication and most of these delays cause a permanent blockage of contact between a specific woman and a man. Women without email want to be contacted immediately. There actually is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner and, no, contacting a gun shop owner does not require a background check. The only way you can rationalize that meeting someone is like buying a gun is if you assume that the foreign woman is purchased from the moment she agrees to having contact, not from the moment she agrees to marry someone (also not a purchase or business transaction). Laws can regulate commercial entities such as bars, but not in terms of which clients can talk with each other in the bar.

4.  The book 1984 dealt with a government interfering with a relationship and “disclosing” important information to the woman in order to break up the relationship. George Orwell, a conservative, was warning about the absolute worst thing a totalitarian government could do. In the movie, Titanic, Jack Dawson violated the ship’s policy that men from steerage could not speak with women from First Class: inhuman laws are made to be ignored.

5.   Marriage Broker is a vague term. If women can pay to contact men, then a site is not a marriage broker, correct your honor?

6.   TJC does not represent women, just some battered women and scammers.

7.   Domestic Violence is not an enumerated power of the Congress.

8.   It is only because of anonymous webmail technology that paper letter writing has dropped off. However, one cannot allow the existence of new technology to make paper letter writing illegal. That would be like saying that biking is illegal because the car was invented.

9.   IMBRA is like the 1907 Expatriation Act where a male-dominated Congress tried to stop women from dating foreigners. It is irrational for our Congress to assume that it is female-dominated right now because men make up half the electorate.

10.   You cannot take a subset of Americans and say they “tend to be violent” and take away their rights a priori. The government cannot enforce background checks on inner city black men who go to liquor stores and then use dating sites. One cannot ask gay men for AIDs test results before being able to say hi to gay men on Gay.com. It does not matter what the statistics show here. There are fundamental civil liberties.

11.  The trend in extra-jurisdictional lawmaking has to be stopped. Since Johnny Taliban was tried in the USA for something he did in Afghanistan , the floodgates have been opened for regulating American citizens’ behavior overseas.

[Admin]

One more thing - SPREAD THE WORD!

Others who may not read RWD, or only read it occasionally, *need* to know about this travesty as well. Let them know.

Forget any of the cross-board crap. This transcends any and all of that - or should.

- Dan

[BillyB]

It is a very long radical feminist spending bill for $430 Million and includes appropriations for many departments, agencies, state and local governments.  There is $1M planned to be awarded to Tahirih Justice Center. 

Of course it's convenient that the Tahirh Justice Center gets a little money to help finance their next agenda of castrating all men.

This sounds like one of those bills that "feels" right and will be passed with Congressmen patting themselves on the back. Does anyone know what the vote was in the House?

Here's a link to your Senators contact info,

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

[Admin]

Here is a link to the entire appropriations bill -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3093

It is pretty extensive. This rider is almost exactly half-way down the page.

- Dan

[BC]

Of course it's convenient that the Tahirh Justice Center gets a little money to help finance their next agenda of castrating all men.

The 'modest' 1 Mil is just a distraction.. Their real 'meat' is probably here:

(10) $40,000,000 for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 103 of the 2005 Act.

Looks like fem's are investing quite a few bucks for their lobbying efforts - with substantial success..  I wonder what men are investing in terms of real substance..

The only real choice left in the near future may be to vote with your feet.

[jen]

Does anyone know what the vote was in the House?

According to the site, the vote was:
Passed House (100% of Democrats supporting, 73% of Republicans opposing.)

[BillyB]

According to the site, the vote was:
Passed House (100% of Democrats supporting, 73% of Republicans opposing.)

If those percentages hold in the Senate, it'll be close to passing since the Senate needs 60% yes. I wonder what Bush's thought is on this?

I suspect most guys here would blow the head off a guy who is violent with their daughters, wives, sisters, and mothers. Unfortunately we do not get to make the laws preventing violence against women.

With the easy and high conviction rate of men accused of DV, it's hard to tell the innocent from the guilty anymore. According to this prosecuting attorney and other sites, all a woman has to do is "fear" a man and he's guilty of DV. Easy classification for what qualifies for DV make it ripe for abuse and women have used it as a weapon against innocent men. It ain't going to get any better unless we speak up.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/what.htm

http://www.co.clark.wa.us/sheriff/community/domestic.html

http://www.metrokc.gov/proatty/dviolence/index.htm

[EandO]

Talking Points for those who call:

1. Congress does not have, as an enumerated power, the right to deal with domestic violence in individual families nor does it have, as an enumerated power, the right to mess with private communications between a man and a woman.

2. IMBRA takes away the right of foreign women to decide their own level of security. Women without email often request to be phoned or telegrammed or get paper mail. No law should stop this from happening, but IMBRA does precisely that because it is impossible to send a background check for signature over the phone and it would take forever to do this via snail mail. In addition, they refuse to be called “mail order brides” and the US government needs to stop using that term ASAP.

3.   IMBRA violates the Right to Assemble. It causes excessive delays in communication and most of these delays cause a permanent blockage of contact between a specific woman and a man. Women without email want to be contacted immediately. There actually is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner and, no, contacting a gun shop owner does not require a background check. The only way you can rationalize that meeting someone is like buying a gun is if you assume that the foreign woman is purchased from the moment she agrees to having contact, not from the moment she agrees to marry someone (also not a purchase or business transaction). Laws can regulate commercial entities such as bars, but not in terms of which clients can talk with each other in the bar.

4.  The book 1984 dealt with a government interfering with a relationship and “disclosing” important information to the woman in order to break up the relationship. George Orwell, a conservative, was warning about the absolute worst thing a totalitarian government could do. In the movie, Titanic, Jack Dawson violated the ship’s policy that men from steerage could not speak with women from First Class: inhuman laws are made to be ignored.

5.   Marriage Broker is a vague term. If women can pay to contact men, then a site is not a marriage broker, correct your honor?

6.   TJC does not represent women, just some battered women and scammers.

7.   Domestic Violence is not an enumerated power of the Congress.

8.   It is only because of anonymous webmail technology that paper letter writing has dropped off. However, one cannot allow the existence of new technology to make paper letter writing illegal. That would be like saying that biking is illegal because the car was invented.

9.   IMBRA is like the 1907 Expatriation Act where a male-dominated Congress tried to stop women from dating foreigners. It is irrational for our Congress to assume that it is female-dominated right now because men make up half the electorate.

10.   You cannot take a subset of Americans and say they “tend to be violent” and take away their rights a priori. The government cannot enforce background checks on inner city black men who go to liquor stores and then use dating sites. One cannot ask gay men for AIDs test results before being able to say hi to gay men on Gay.com. It does not matter what the statistics show here. There are fundamental civil liberties.

11.  The trend in extra-jurisdictional lawmaking has to be stopped. Since Johnny Taliban was tried in the USA for something he did in Afghanistan , the floodgates have been opened for regulating American citizens’ behavior overseas.

Ok, I'll bite . Where is IMBRA mentioned in the Bill? Or are you of the belief that more men will be arrested and then not be eligible for finding a mate outside of the US? Please point me in the direction you're reading this.

[Admin]

Ok, I'll bite . Where is IMBRA mentioned in the Bill? Or are you of the belief that more men will be arrested and then not be eligible for finding a mate outside of the US? Please point me in the direction you're reading this.

You are correct - IMBRA is not mentioned explicitly. Neither is TJC. However, if you visit Congressman Moran's website (http://moran.house.gov/apps/list/press/va08_moran/CJS08.shtml), you will see his blather about $1M to come from this bill in support of TJC, who in turn, are the prime movers behind IMBRA.

As for "arrest enforcement policies" consider:

* This appropriations bill is coming from the US "Office on Violence Against Women"
* Curiously, there was a recent article published in The Washington Post (and reprinted here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=5924.0), which serves to dramatically undermine the purported "statistics" which has led the country in the direction of misandry.
* For those who would dispute the EFFECT of the misandrist agenda, take a look at this ABC News piece from January -- http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047&page=1
* Included in that article is evidence which says that women are more often abusers than men - yet there is certainly no equal treatment when it comes to the DV statutes.

Finally - the fact that Moran (reference above) is able to crow about the $1M in pork he was able to secure for the TJC (a political organization is in his backyard) - YET - there is no mention of any of this in the bill itself, speaks to a serious problem of our government failing to be entirely transparent as to its agenda.

- Dan

[Misha]

You are correct - IMBRA is not mentioned explicitly. Neither is TJC. However, if you visit Congressman Moran's website (http://moran.house.gov/apps/list/press/va08_moran/CJS08.shtml), you will see his blather about $1M to come from this bill in support of TJC, who in turn, are the prime movers behind IMBRA.

As for "arrest enforcement policies" consider:

* This appropriations bill is coming from the US "Office on Violence Against Women"
* Curiously, there was a recent article published in The Washington Post (and reprinted here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=5924.0), which serves to dramatically undermine the purported "statistics" which has led the country in the direction of misandry.
* For those who would dispute the EFFECT of the misandrist agenda, take a look at this ABC News piece from January -- http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2741047&page=1
* Included in that article is evidence which says that women are more often abusers than men - yet there is certainly no equal treatment when it comes to the DV statutes.

Finally - the fact that Moran (reference above) is able to crow about the $1M in pork he was able to secure for the TJC (a political organization is in his backyard) - YET - there is no mention of any of this in the bill itself, speaks to a serious problem of our government failing to be entirely transparent as to its agenda.

- Dan

This is one of the client victories reported by TBJ:

"Ana*, from Uzbekistan, was 17 years old when she started corresponding with Roger, a U.S. citizen over 20 years her senior, through an Internet dating service. Ana arrived in the U.S. on a fiancée visa full of hopes and dreams about her future with Roger. It was not until after her marriage to Roger that she realized how abusive he was. Roger would regularly abuse Ana through physical violence, sexual violence and mentally controlling behavior. Ana contacted the Tahirih Justice Center and, through the help of the Center, was granted a work permit and eligibility to apply for permanent residency in the United States under the 'Violence Against Women Act.'"

[William3rd]

So- in other words, her I360 Petition as an abused spouse was approved by USCIS, giving her the work permit and the right to apply for permanent resident status.

[Admin]

This is one of the client victories reported by TBJ:

"Ana*, from Uzbekistan, was 17 years old when she started corresponding with Roger, a U.S. citizen over 20 years her senior, through an Internet dating service. Ana arrived in the U.S. on a fiancée visa full of hopes and dreams about her future with Roger. It was not until after her marriage to Roger that she realized how abusive he was. Roger would regularly abuse Ana through physical violence, sexual violence and mentally controlling behavior. Ana contacted the Tahirih Justice Center and, through the help of the Center, was granted a work permit and eligibility to apply for permanent residency in the United States under the 'Violence Against Women Act.'"

I think we all would acknowledge that some foreign women have married abusive American men, and atrocities have, in fact, occurred. The Barney, King, and Blackwell murders all spring to mind - and there are, no doubt, many other instances of violence involving AM and foreign women.

The part I find unacceptable is that fundamental rights accorded in the Constitution are being sacrificed in the name of protecting foreign women from American men - and there is no valid body of evidence to support the claims which were made in passing that restrictive legislation.

The over-zealous legislation was created out of misandry by feminists who have deceived the lawmakers and the public. So long as nobody reveals the deceptions and lies, an ever-increasing tightening of basic freedoms through passage of restrictive laws is to be expected.

For those who do not feel 'activist' about opposing the "arrest enforcement policies" - I submit there is not a single person who has ever been wrongly-accused of DV among them. Anyone who has felt the sting of a mis-shapen and misguided legal system (there is no such thing as a JUSTICE system), will feel, I predict, sufficiently-motivated to action.

Things are only going to get worse - until and unless we begin to speak up .... LOUDLY. It will also, as you can see in this appropriations bill - require money. A lot of it.

Don't believe me? You don't have to. I distinctly recall - and could probably find the quotations in the archives at PL - when Cantwell first introduced the beginnings of IMBRA into Washington state. Almost nobody gave it ANY chance of passage - but pass it did - and grow it has.

Act now - and act again, in the future, when the feminists introduce their next misandrist assault. They will. Are you going to do anything about it?

- Dan

[Makkin]

Hi,

  It will fall two votes short.

Makkin

[Admin]

Hi,

  It will fall two votes short.

Makkin

Why do you think so?

- Dan

[Simoni]

Ok, I'm contacting my Senators. 

I was not going to, but then remembered I wrote them a few weeks ago about getting the NFL Network on my Cable TV system.

This is MUCH more important...

Hope lots of other RWD'ers follow through, too.

~Si