GAO Says 398 Sex Offenders Filed Family-Based Petitions in 2005

[BC]

The courts are declaring that there is no right for the federal government to regulate gun ownership.

Another problem is: Meeting a woman is not like buying a gun.

A woman is not a gun.

And neither is a man a "lethal weapon"...except in the minds of feminists and evangelical "Christians" in certain places.

Furthermore, contact with a gun owner is not regulated...just the physical "Purchase" of that gun.

Information about the gun is not regulated.

Nobody purchases anything in the dating business, except information.

Information is not a weapon...except in the ideologies of feminists and evangelical "Christians" in certain bizarre communities.

Do you clearly understand that?

If the courts declare there is no right to regulate weapons then fine, but I don't think that will happen.  That is up to the courts.  My example was to bring your thoughts to recognize that regardless of the exact words of the constitution, it is up to the legislature and courts to work out any Constitutional problems.  We can huff and puff all we want but until then things are as they are.

Judge Cooper was probably told by Biden and Clinton that he would never be nominated for the SC unless he reversed his TRO and made that incredibly absurd comparison.

Cooper was clearly grasping for straws in the "decision" that he signed (it reads like it was written by a young court clerk who was copying from an email she got from the Tahirih Justice Center).

This I don't know about.

Jack: Who is BC and why would Dan, who is very much against IMBRA, delete an anti-IMBRA argument while letting BC schill for the Tahirih Justice Center?

I don't see that happening.

What I did notice is that BC seems to have an agenda that is not being asserted directly. There is no reason for a married man to spend time trying to tell unmarried men that they have no right to meet someone on the same day if they and the woman wants to (the college student I met on extremely short notice yesterday was very happy about the last minute chance to meet a businessman visiting her city - and there was nothing slutty or "call girl" about her enthusiasm).

Unfortunately you haven't been around here to know that I do not 'shill' for anybody.  I look at a situation, say my piece and that's that.  I learn as much as I say and that is my purpose.

I assert that I want IMBRA defeated, that this is not just an intellectual debate, and will work toward achieving that goal. If BC very much wants IMBRA to be upheld, it would be fair to disclose that fact as well as what he or she plans to do about making sure IMBRA is upheld.

It is laws like this and others that could very well cause the Ron Paul movement to destroy the Republican Party's chance of winning even a dog catcher's post until other Republicans grow up and realize that the party of limited government needs to be just that: the party of limited government intrusion into the lives of others. I watched the Democratic Debates last night and was astonished to see Joe Biden, the champion of VAWA/IMBRA, talking on and on about how he champions "civil rights."

I understand your position and opinion. I'm not fighting you at all, just pointing out that the legal road ahead is quite rough and you will likely see every legal argument I posed in my responses above.

I know at least 3 Russian women who would love to debate Joe Biden on their "civil rights" such as their no longer being allowed able to decide their own level of security in meeting American men via dating sites.

Just because a foreign woman interacts (or wishes to) with an American Citizen does not necessarily give her Constitutional protection, I guess it could be brought to a court but think that's quite a long shot.  It would be up to her to bring her case to the courts as the harmed party.  Are these three women ready to file?

[Admin]

I just read, and re-read, the last few pages of this topic.

There are a couple of simple dynamics in play.

First, Jim, you are escalating through (I believe) intentional misinterpretation of what was written - particularly by BC. Your agenda is clear enough. You want a "generally pro-IMBRA atmosphere" at RWD to cease.

Next, there is confusion (intentional or not) over BC's position on IMBRA. I know from his previous posts - and from reading his latest - his posts were not addressed to support IMBRA. BC has never been particularly fond of international marriage agencies, hence, the tension you witness with Jack. Others here, many whom have worked with agencies, are not fond of them either. My personal feelings are that I am ambivalent. There are some who are good, there are many who are bad. One of the many hurdles facing a newbie in this pursuit is, sadly, the need to learn how to parse the good from the bad and circumnavigate the many agency-driven potholes. Those are facts we see driven home time and time again in first-hand reports in this board.

Just because BC has a bias in disfavor of agencies, does not necessarily equate to support of IMBRA - but that is how you (Jim) are casting it.

- Dan

[MidnightinMoscow]

OK. It is good to see the problem is with agencies and not the men who date Russian women.

Yes, the Russian women are ready to file against IMBRA.

But not one American lawyer or government official has been able to tell me if that would be allowed.

I have been told by a Democrat lobbyist that "foreign women have no rights in a US court".

This person said "IMBRA is forced informed consent" while favoring the law.

He thought Russian women were like children and cannot think for themselves.

It probably is true that foreign women are not allowed to have any say in the IMBRA matter. That will not keep the TJC from bringing up divorced women like Natasha to say "that brutal man took my car keys away".

At best, the foreign women will be able to testify as expert witnesses (Russian women who want to meet American men).

Of course, everything you said will 100% be brought up in court. They are precisely the TJC talking points. That is why I made some assumptions.

Meanwhile, if you are unaware of the details of the EC Case and the AODA Case as well as Encounters Case, it would be hard to explain the additional factors we will be up against, but suffice it to say that we have expert witnesses who will help a plaintiff overturn even the Encounters decision at the Supreme Court level.

One could also discuss Castle Rock, the CDA decision, Reno vs ACLU...all decisions that argue in favor of overturning IMBRA.

This is a very complicated matter and it would take a thick book to describe what has been happening.

At least I have enough material for a book. 

[MidnightinMoscow]

But here is an example of what is happening behind the scenes with IMBRA:

The wife of Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, the man who helped get IMBRA snuck past the Congress and then got them $1 Million in funding, has just been exposed as being a fundraiser for the Tahirih Justice Center, the women's "shelter" that wrote, promotes and defends IMBRA.

The TJC just took her name off the roster. Too late. They must have felt that the FBI and others would look the other way, considering its a "good cause".

[Simoni]

Either way, it is a "win" if a generally pro-IMBRA atmosphere ceases on a particular forum.

Actually, just the opposite is occurring here.  And your posts are responsible for this.

You are your own worst enemy.

[MidnightinMoscow]

So you are pro-IMBRA Simoni?

[Simoni]

No, but your rhetoric drives people who were mildly annoyed with IMBRA to rethink the need for it.

[MidnightinMoscow]

It usually does not even on the feminist forums.

Remember, Dan is very much against IMBRA and wants to see a court battle in 2008.

Explain, please what part of the "rhetoric" would drive you to see a need for it?

Are you troubled that I was able to meet someone within 2 hours yesterday? Does it bother you that she wanted to meet an American so quickly?

Are you an American in the Ukraine? Hopefully not involved with the US Embassy Consular Office.

I am on Independence Square in Kiev right now, by the way.

[Admin]

Jim, your points have been made.

This site, and the other International Relations site, are currently, have in the past, and will in the future, support ODR (www.onlinedatingrights.com) in their efforts to effectively combat IMBRA.

IMBRA is only a tangential theme to our focus at RWD.

In the case where someone with a singular obsession makes use of RWD to create disruption, that is considered, appropriately and by definition, trollish behavior.

Caution should be noted by the participants that IMBRA, while a real issue and affects some of us at RWD is not our principal theme. Those who wish to debate the topic fervently should migrate over to ODR and participate there - where they are singularly focused on this topic.

- Dan