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

[BC]

Anyone can win instantly against IMBRA with the above 12 arguments. This is highlighted by the fact that nobody has even dared to try to refute the above arguments.

Then why haven't you done just that?

Hey I am the first to object that the government interferes in my life, but after all, they do have the power to say no to her entering the country.

If you go to that same country, meet a girl on the street, fall in love and marry then no problemo, IMBRA or not.. or? (unless you are a sex offender or have a long list of priors).

When transfer of funds enters the game it is quite different.

In principle, not really different than financial transactions that land you in bed with a nice hoe.. for which you could (theoretically) be charged with soliciting prostitution upon your return to the US even if the 'act' happened overseas. (I *think*?)

What's the difference between a pimp and a  'broker'?... and how is the government going to tell the difference when both industries are totally unregulated and providing services that are really not that different?

It's the money that changes everything.

[MidnightinMoscow]

Dating sites are not "brokers". That is what radical feminists called them in order to make them seem sinister.

Please do not use the term "broker" to refer to a "dating site" or an "introduction service"...businesses that were unregulated for 6000 years and don't suddenly need regulating now (unless one accepts the radical feminist view that we men are getting more and more dangerous).

The bottom line is that the "Commerce Clause" has never trumped the "Right to Assemble". When people want to meet each other, you cannot say "feminists feel that these women cannot think for themselves even in their own country" and then slap regulation on them.

If you read the above 12 points, the "money changes everything" argument cannot stand.

You can check ID at the door of a bar, but you cannot force a man to show his ID to every woman in the bar after he has entered it and shown the ID once.

Then why haven't you done just that?

Hey I am the first to object that the government interferes in my life,

The answer to this always has to be, no, why haven't you challenged IMBRA? I will get time to challenge IMBRA in about six months because of circumstances. That is irrelevant. Everyone reading this ought to be considering their own challenge.

Above are listed 12 reasons why you should challenge if you are American. Unless you can argue against each of the 12, then you should want to.

One can tell the court that the CDA ruling guaranteed the right to be anonymous in chatting with strangers.

Heck, even the principle that the government should not try to stop married men from cheating is worth challenging.

And you just named another one: not only is there no US federal law against an American using a prostitute in a foreign country, it would be extra-jurisdictional as well as unconstitutional for them to try to make one (although such a law is the logical sequel to IMBRA).

And another knock down of the "Commerce" argument is that Craigs List gives the names and phone numbers and home addresses of foreign prostitutes. They charge the foreign prostitutes $25 per listing.

Craigs List gets past IMBRA on two minor technicalities (their main business is not providing dating services between Americans and foreigners and prostitution is not "dating").

In 95% of my adult life, wild horses couldn't have stopped me from challenging an outrageously unconstitutional law like this. It is frustrating to be temporarily unable to do so.

More about the "commerce" angle...for 6000 years matchmakers took cash. Not even the National Socialists of Germany had a problem with that. It is only radical feminism that ever made the connection between prostitution and matchmaking...and the evangelist Christian Republican Brownback made a really bad alliance with those who felt that way.

IMBRA's passing deep inside of VAWA remains unknown to most people...the public doesn't know about it or they have been fed the garbage that it is about "disclosure" and not forced background checks of Americans just for wanting to say hello to someone, as well as forcing women into "forced informed consent", taking away their rights to decide their own level of personal security.

Ron Paul would not be so popular now if Republicans and Democrats alike had not seen a general trend in their politicians making major leaps against their natural rights.

The bottom line is that no law has put the Commerce Clause over the Right to Assemble.

[Khankrumthebulgar]

IMBRA is an attempt to regulate Market demand for Wives. US Men have come to the conclusion that Marriage is a high risk low reward proposition. And are employing a Risk mitigation strategy. Pre-Nups, Marry Conservative Women, Marry Foreign Women. In 1999 there were about 5000 Marriages to Foreign Women in the US. By 2004 the number was nearly 49,000. Last year it was 12% of US Marriages. Men want reasonable and realistic Wives. Which US Women sadly are no longer.

And the litany of High Net Worth Men taken to the cleaners continues to grow. Lute Olson of UofA the Basketball Coach, Terry Gene Bollea aka. Hulk Hogan, Michael Strahan, Jason Kidd, Michael Jordan. All ass reamed in Divorce Court. And treated like criminals. Men are sick of their status in the US. And it is getting worse instead of better.

IMBRA represents a barrier to entry. An attempt to keep US Men at home with US Women. Instead of true Family Court reform, an end to No Fault Divorce they try this nonsense. Men in the US according to an Equity Feminist who marched with Gloria Steinem in the 1960s for Women's Rights. Are "Beasts of Burden". Presented with a Prison cell if the Invoice is not paid.

Feminism will die in the US, if enough US Men refuse to Marry US Women. What will be left willing to Marry. Will not be worth their time or interest. It will force change. This is basic Macro Economics at work. US Women have become Batshit Insane Entitlement Princesses due to 20 years of brain washing by Oprah and the Spin Sisters. Men are sick of this. With 24% joining the Marriage Strike.

Eastern European and FSU Women are a viable and appealing alternative. If both are benefitted to hell with the US Government. They have made it clear, Men do not matter in the US. Only Women matter. The US has become a Gynocracy.

[Simoni]

Feminism will die in the US, if enough US Men refuse to Marry US Women.

What is this dribble?

The men's version of antidate?

No thanks.

~Si

[groovlstk]

It is only radical feminism that ever made the connection between prostitution and matchmaking...and the evangelist Christian Republican Brownback made a really bad alliance with those who felt that way.

Sadly enough, the feminists who equate matchmaking with prostitution are not too far off the mark, given the overwhelming number of marriage agencies operating in the FSU who repeatedly scam westerners and match sincere if naive guys with professional daters and slumming prostitutes.

[Khankrumthebulgar]

My friend you do not live here. As a 51 year old twice Married Father of five and Grandfather. Our culture has become a nightmare for Men seeking a sane life with a Woman. Our children especially boys are drugged into submission if they don't behave in school. The US consumes 85% of the world's Ritalin a powerful amphetamine. And our Boys many are on anti-depressants. The Divorce rate in the US is 50% overall. Our Marriages one in five are celibate meaning Sex once a year or less.

US Men are going offshore, to Eastern Europe, Latin America, Central Asia, Asia and marrying Women in record numbers. If the present trend continues in just 20 years 25% of US Marriages will be between an American Man and a Foreign Woman. We also have other effects of this disaster. The highest rate of Sexually transmitted diseases ever last year. The highest rate of Children born out of wedlock ever in our history.

Fatherless homes are engines for the abuse of Children and crime. Both are growing in the US. According to data 85% of the Men in US Prisons come from Single Mother homes. This is well known and documented. In our Inner cities with a heavy Black Population 70% of the homes are Single Mothers. And Blacks killing blacks is at an appalling rate. Much worse than Racism ever was.

These are facts not opinions. This is cause and effect in action. This is why US Men who Marry reasonable and realistic Foreign Women are happier.

[William3rd]

He can always avail himself of the federal judicial system. However, he is filing in this country for a case that will be heard in this country. Thus, he would be returning to this country to work his case.

Does he have standing?
Has he been harmed?

Have you been following the ONE NATION UNDER GOD DEBATE? Part of the standing issues are applicable to this case.

[MidnightinMoscow]

Sadly enough, the feminists who equate matchmaking with prostitution are not too far off the mark, given the overwhelming number of marriage agencies operating in the FSU who repeatedly scam westerners and match sincere if naive guys with professional daters and slumming prostitutes.

This is a good point. The statistic I know of is that 8% of these foreign internet marriages involve a foreign scammer professional and a naive American guy.

But the Tahirih Justice Center then helps this scammer professional.

In the European Connections case, the TJC actually had the gall to say (paraphrase) "it is precisely because of the fact that some of these women are scamming the naive men, that the men can be expected to be violent when they suddenly learn that they'd been had".

They were effectively saying "Shut down international matchmaking because these women don't really like the American men and, when the American men wake up and realize this, they might get violent...so we need to protect the foreign scammers from themselves by helping them to fraudulently accuse men from inside our shelters and get the citizenship they deserve."

In the Andrew Marton article, the Star Telegram tried to nail home this idea as well. It is a bizarre and sick point of view, but there you have it.

The problem is, statistics show that 80-92% of these marriages involve honest foreigners and most marriages last while the actual violence rate is 1% compared to the US national average of 7%.

[Admin]

The problem is, statistics show that 80-92% of these marriages involve honest foreigners and most marriages last while the actual violence rate is 1% compared to the US national average of 7%.

Not that I am disagreeing, but could you back up that statement with a citation, or better - a link to the source?

- Dan

[BC]

Dating sites are not "brokers". That is what radical feminists called them in order to make them seem sinister.

Please do not use the term "broker" to refer to a "dating site" or an "introduction service"...businesses that were unregulated for 6000 years and don't suddenly need regulating now (unless one accepts the radical feminist view that we men are getting more and more dangerous).

The bottom line is that the "Commerce Clause" has never trumped the "Right to Assemble". When people want to meet each other, you cannot say "feminists feel that these women cannot think for themselves even in their own country" and then slap regulation on them.

....

The bottom line is that no law has put the Commerce Clause over the Right to Assemble.

Well so far the PROTECT act has held, restricting the right to assemble and have paid sex with minors.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=5479594

More than 50 cases have been brought under what's known as the Protect Act, and more than 30 of the defendants have been convicted, the Justice Department says.

So far, however, only one federal appeals court - the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - has reviewed the law, upholding it in a 2-1 ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal of that decision.

Critics, including dissenting 9th U.S. Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson, charge that Congress reached too far in giving international police power to U.S. prosecutors. Ferguson asked if U.S. agents should likewise round up Americans who buy marijuana in Amsterdam or Cuban cigars in Timbuktu.

So still being  'tested' I guess.

I'm not trying to piss on your parade here, but you might want to review the archives.. we've been through all this IMBRA stuff before here quite a while back.  I really don't see anything new with the arguments you bring forth in this thread.

The government does not prohibit you to meet women, If you can't get a US broker to take your bucks just go with a foreign or free one.

[William3rd]

Please- not another reference to that tired old 1997 survey. It was pretty poorly done when they finished it and more than out of date now.

[MidnightinMoscow]

The government does not prohibit you to meet women, If you can't get a US broker to take your bucks just go with a foreign or free one.

Of course the government is prohibiting its citizens from meeting foreigners via IMBRA. Nobody has ever won a debate on that point online that I know about. If there are archives on RWD that I never checked, point them out to me so I can finish the thread with the facts on the matter.

If a specific woman wants to meet any and all men, the US government (which now employs too many feminists and evangelical busybodies) are blocking her rights and an American's rights by causing any delay at all (luckily, few services are fully complying with IMBRA so many men have not noticed a delay). If a woman does not have an email address listed with an agency, some dishonest agencies now just accept a man's money and later claim they were unable to get her to send an email as a written approval for contact. This is against the interests of both the woman and the man, but not against the interest of a disreputable dating site because they get to preserve their database while shrugging their shoulders and saying "the government forced us to block contact".

And the whole reason is because idealogues despise the whole business. They don't want Americans to meet Russian women.

And a dating service is not a "broker." That is an offensive term and it is dishonest unless applied to Match.com and Adultfriendfinder.com and various pornographic internationally oriented dating services like Adultfriendfinder.

I would have assumed that RWD had already discussed and determined the scammer percentage statistics. After all, there are big discussions of scammers in other parts of the forum. I don't keep track because the issue doesn't interest me. If a man cannot sense a prostitute even 5000 miles away, that is his problem. The number I have seen talked about is 8%. Dave Root probably has the stats for that. I just talked with a dating site employee who says that the scammes are not more than 10%.

IMBRA is not going to be upheld because the Protect Act got 2 out of 3 9th Circuit judges to say it was OK. First of all, this act is about stopping something that everyone agrees is wrong (the 30 convicted men were all involved with minors under 15). Judges tend to look for excuses to uphold laws that they like the sound of.

Comparing saying hello to an adult vs raping a child is like comparing apples and rocks.

If the next challenger fails to convince the judges that saying hello to a woman in another country is laudable and a great thing to do, then that will have been a mistake.

The Protect Act is about prosecuting actual child molestors as well as Americans who obey the laws of the country they are in (keep in mind that the age of consent in Sweden is 15) and, alarmingly, Americans who obey the laws of their own home state (keep in mind that the age of consent in Kansas is 16).

In fact, one reason for the Ron Paul movement is that a lot of US citizens are getting alarmed at the general trend of lawmakers and judges to overreach and forget the Constitution. Not only is it bizarre to claim international police power, most police actions are a states rights issue, not a federal issue.

It is one thing to say that US law can apply on US registered sailing ships, on US owned airplanes and in the UCMJ code of military service members abroad. It is quite another to say the US owns it citizens and has jurisdiction over them whereever they go. It is one thing to say "if you enjoy the rights and privileges of US citizenship, you have to accept the responsibilities". It is another thing to say that the social contract between the American citizen and the government can be broken at any time by the actions of a fanatical born-again cowboy whose appointed judge lackey suddenly says "the Supreme Court has never recognized a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".

The foreign governments should be imprisoning any American who commits murder or child rape, assuming those are crimes in the foreign territory. Extra-jurisdictional laws are extremely rare...and it seems that Germany, Holland and the US are only making an EXCEPTION for when their citizens have sex with minors overseas.

Remember: Some western countries are making an "Exception to the Rule" with their laws against their citizens having sex with minors overseas. They recognize that it is bizarre for a country to "own" its citizens and have jurisdiction over them when they are not in the country. The Bush Administration has gone further than just the child sex stuff and the US prosecuation of Johnny Taliban for shooting at US soldiers in Afghanistan: the Bushies have now said that an American cannot have a bank account in a foreign country without reporting any amount over $10K and the have agreed to IMBRA (possibly precisely because IMBRA would be a convenient excuse to uphold the concept of international police power for the US government).

Foreign adult women are NOT minors, there is nothing wrong with saying hello to a foreign adult woman and the Swedish Government has overturned Sweden's IMBRA law for that very reason.

So let's not have anybody think a law barring contact with adult foreign women (and IMBRA would bar contact with women who do not have email if agencies were to seriously comply - they don't seriously comply thankfully) is going to be upheld because there exists a law that bars sex with foreign minors.

Let me know, however, if the Protect Act is really about commerce, because I thought it had to do with Americans having sex with minors in other countries. I also don't remember: does the act make it illegal for acts that would be legal in the American's home state? There was a newspaper article where the lawyer Garagos noted that the Protect Act could not be used against an American who did something that was legal in his home state.

[Admin]

I would have assumed that Dan was the expert on the scammer percentage statistics. I don't keep track. I just talked to a dating agency owner and she says that, the older a woman is, the more likely she is not a scammer. The number I have seen talked about is 8%.

IMBRA is not going to be upheld because the Protect Act was not reviewed. In fact, it is clear that the Protect Act was not reviewed because it carries an extremely uncomfortable reality: that of a government assuming ownership over its citizens even when they are not in the country. Extra-jurisdictional laws are extremely rare...and it seems that Germany, Holland and the US are only making an EXCEPTION for when their citizens have sex with minors overseas.

Foreign adult women are NOT minors and the Swedish Government has overturned Sweden's IMBRA law.

So don't anybody think a law barring contact with adult foreign women (and IMBRA would bar contact with women who do not have email if agencies were to seriously comply - they don't seriously comply thankfully) is going to be upheld because there exists a law that bars sex with foreign minors.

Let me know, however, if the Protect Act is really about commerce, because I thought it had to do with Americans having sex with minors in other countries. I also don't remember: does the act make it illegal for acts that would be legal in the American's home state?

Contrary to that assumption, I don't hold myself up to be an "expert" on much of the activities that go on with international dating. I have some perspectives, and no shortage of opinions, but not so sure how that translates to "expertise." You see, in my professional field, one demonstrates expertise through results and through credentialling. I hold numerous professional credentials, but to my knowledge, there are none in the "industry" of international dating - unless, of course, the mere fact of a marriage certificate somehow bestows a level of expertise, but that has never been, and likely never will be, my contention.

Jim, you can Google this stuff up as easily as I can. The answer to your question about Americans having sex with minors in other countries is probably not found in the "Protect Act", but Interpol maintains a site which contains the laws from numerous countries, and the US laws on the topic may be found at this page -- http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaUSA.pdf

As I interpret it (I am *not* a lawyer), it says that if an American citizen travels to a foreign country for the express purpose of engaging in sex with a minor under the age of 18, they are subject to prosecution under US Federal law. For that matter, I am not sure the American citizen must have demonstrated "express purpose" - if it happens just casually and without willful forethought, I think they are still subject to prosecution.

Now - back to the question of statistics. One of the consistent themes of RWD is that people who come here and spout statistics - even if most of us happen to agree with the direction of the claim - those people are routinely challenged to provide citation and reference to the source. It is merely a matter of credibility. Absent a source, the 8% number you mention has no credibility - and you should expect to be challenged each and every time you reference a statistical value.

- Dan

[BC]

So let's not have anybody think a law barring contact with adult foreign women (and IMBRA would bar contact with women who do not have email if agencies were to seriously comply - they don't seriously comply thankfully) is going to be upheld because there exists a law that bars sex with foreign minors.

So.. If you see a woman in a magazine, ask directory assistance for her number and the operator tells you that the number is unlisted and NO she will not give it to you.. - is that barring contact with an adult foreign woman?

The government may make it more difficult for you.. but not prohibiting you to contact her if you can do so by other means.

Think of your national 'no call' lists, barring companies to telephone you in the middle of the night with advertising.  Should the government have no rights to make such laws?

With a gazillion (at last count) women on dating sites, agency sites and other sites what is the problem with going elsewhere?  The only impact I could think of is if you fell in love with a picture and could not get hold of an agency during their business hours, or didn't want to fill out a form? Quite extreme I think.  Anyone that is in 'need' that bad should indeed be barred from contacting 'her' and should seek relief elsewhere.

Weak arguments IMHO.

[MidnightinMoscow]

So.. If you see a woman in a magazine, ask directory assistance for her number and the operator tells you that the number is unlisted and NO she will not give it to you.. - is that barring contact with an adult foreign woman?

The foreign women are listing their numbers or whatever means by which they WANT to be contacted.

That is completely the opposite of people who WANT their number to be unlisted.

If the US Government prevented the phone companies from giving out LISTED numbers, that would be horrifying.

IMBRA is exactly like the US government telling phone companies that they cannot give out even listed phone numbers.

The government may make it more difficult for you.. but not prohibiting you to contact her if you can do so by other means.

There is no other means. Remember we are talking about meeting a specific person. If that person lists herself with an agency and WANTS to be contacted by anyone and everyone, it is wrong to take away her RIGHT to be contacted as she WANTS to be.

Think of your national 'no call' lists, barring companies to telephone you in the middle of the night with advertising.  Should the government have no rights to make such laws?

The "no call" list is for people who have expressly asked NOT to be contacted.

They go to a special website and fill out a form saying "I do not want to be contacted".

That is the complete opposite of women on dating sites who WANT to be contacted.

In fact, wouldn't BC agree that foreign women should be allowed to go to a special US government website and fill out an IMBRA Waiver form saying "I wish to be contacted by anyone and everyone by phone. Because I do not have an email address I wish to be exempt from having to approve of contact in writing before someone just phones me, which is what I want to have happen."

With a gazillion (at last count) women on dating sites, agency sites and other sites what is the problem with going elsewhere?

Your profile says you are married. What is your interest in IMBRA?

The problem is that a specific woman must not be blocked by the US Government for wanting to exercise her right to announce herself to the world, including American men.

Craigs List publishes the phone numbers and home addresses of foreign prostitutes who pay $25 to Craigs List per month for the adspace.

There actually are not a gazillion women on these sites and I see less and less these days who are my type. I am not interested in using them much anymore myself.

Furthermore, hardly any site is really complying with IMBRA so the blocking effect is happening less than theoretically possible.

The only impact I could think of is if you fell in love with a picture and could not get hold of an agency during their business hours, or didn't want to fill out a form? Quite extreme I think.  Anyone that is in 'need' that bad should indeed be barred from contacting 'her' and should seek relief elsewhere.

Wanting to meet a specific person because of her profile does not qualify as "falling in love with a picture".

This argument is the standard right-wing anti-male "Let's stop the sex tourists" argument. You seem to forget that a woman who wants to meet a man on short notice is also having her rights trampled on when a government steps in and stops the meeting from happening.

Yesterday at 3PM, I felt like meeting someone that evening and a reputable agency got me a date for 5PM with a gorgeous 19 year old who was a college student and not a prostitute. The IMBRA form took 5 seconds to fill out but the point is that they correctly just took my word for it that I had no criminal record and repeated that to the woman and got a verbal agreement to meet.

She did not have to sign paperwork in order to meet me after business hours. If she had to, that would have been a crime by the US government for blocking this woman and me from meeting.

I am never going to be in this city again possibly for the rest of my life so a delay would have constituted a permanent block on the two of us from ever meeting.

The form takes 5 seconds to fill out and no agency checks IDs and it is all on the honor system and anyone can lie like crazy. I don't think anyone has ever listed every state they ever lived in.

Weak arguments IMHO.

BC: Nobody has ever won an argument online where they have defended IMBRA.

[Admin]

BC: Nobody has ever won an argument online where they have defended IMBRA.

Small point, perhaps - but I have to comment. I have often wondered what is is, how it is, that someone determine who "won an argument online"?

You see, it is my perspective that online arguments are rarely, if ever, won or lost. They are simply debated with point and counterpoint until they devolve into personal insults (often), or they run out of gas because one or both parties grow tired of the campaign. Then it is up to the individual reader to pick and choose what they believe and how to interpret what was presented. Win or lose? Seldom able to determine.

Just my take.

- Dan

[MidnightinMoscow]

Dan,

Please let BC know your take on his comments about IMBRA being like the "No Call" legislation where women have apparently told the US government, via a form, that they don't want to be contacted by American men.

You do want IMBRA overturned by the courts yourself.

Most IMBRA debates online have not devolved into insults. They have mostly evolved into the other person admitting that at least parts of IMBRA are unconstitutional.

They often save face by saying "I never said I was for IMBRA, I was just being a devil's advocate".

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

Even on such feminist forums as Feministing.com, Jessica won't praise IMBRA in any new topics because she knows that some of her own members are now convinced that there is a serious problem with this law.

A really good example is the Fred Thomson supporter who kept condemning older men who might date a twenty-something woman, using the most vile language. I won the argument when I noted that Fred Thompson himself was 24 years older than his wife and he is overweight and bald like the people he assumed he was condemning. After that, the guy said "your problem is that you assume that I was pro-IMBRA when I was just stating my opinion about ugly old guys who date much younger women". Whatever. Any reader could see that there was no longer any disagreement about IMBRA itself, just about whether older men had the right to be happy or not. :-)

[Jack]

   Just because one is labeled a sex predator doesn't mean he's bad. 

BillyB I think exceptions can be made to every statement if one wants to search hard enough for an isolated incident. But with this statement as a whole I will just say that you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with expressed opinion.








....."I think they simply did not have, or want to spend the kind of money needed to take things 'to the top"......"Then why haven't you done just that?"......."In principle, not really different than financial transactions that land you in bed with a nice hoe"......."What's the difference between a pimp and a  'broker'?"......." Anyone that is in 'need' that bad should indeed be barred from contacting 'her' and should seek relief elsewhere.".........

....."Weak arguments IMHO".......




Weak Arguments?   Indeed.

Oh yes, been there, done that with this poster.  Another great example of the pot calling the kettle black


MidnightinMoscow, Khankrumthebulgar, and any others who know that IMBRA has violated some of your constinutional rights, it will do you no good to debate this with the individual BC.  In fact if you do, even in a very polite, professional manner, and if in the process your counter shows him to be the [deleted] he is, your post's could just disappear.  It has happened to me.  Of course mangement apoligized, did not know this happened, but never did repost my very polite and effecient counter debate while allowing his to stand.

Do not concern yourself, do not waste your time with responding to anything you find objectionable with what BC writes. Its best just to let BC promulgate his assertions and not try to contend his perspicacity. 

[BC]

Midnight,

I think you are missing my points by a long shot.

Let me provide a more simple example.

The Constitution also says you have the right to bear arms... Nowdays it is required in most places to do a background check before you buy a weapon.

If you are stuck in front of a closed gun store and that weapon you want is in the window, just inches away, explain how your Constitutional rights have been infringed upon.

Don't you see a parallel here?

The government with IMBRA is not telling you:  'YOU CAN'T MEET THAT WOMAN', it has only imposed some requirements for commercial brokers (back to that commerce clause), that were deemed necessary in the interest of the public.

As to my participation here, yes, I am married to a RW.  So what?

[BC]

Welcome back Jack!.. hey that rhymes.. LOL

[MidnightinMoscow]

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?

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).

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).

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 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.

[BillyB]

BillyB I think exceptions can be made to every statement if one wants to search hard enough for an isolated incident. But with this statement as a whole I will just say that you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree with expressed opinion.

Jack, did you read the rest of what I wrote? Based on our society's interpretation of what constitutes a sex offender, most every man here including you can be labeled a sex offender and I wouldn't call you or them bad men. There may have been a time when you made romantic moves on a woman as nature intended. You thought the time was right, maybe she didn't. If she got offended, she could have went to the police to report you that you put your hands on her private parts. There may have been a time you made love to your ex wife when she didn't want it. You could be charged with rape. I think very lowly of sexual preditors and have no problems executing them for their crimes but based on law, you and I can be mixed in with truly morally bankrupt men out there, the only difference is that we were never accused and taken to trial.

[MidnightinMoscow]

Bottom line is that I had a great day yesterday while meeting a great young lady and having dinner in the center of a fantastic foreign city in a snow storm.

This happened because a dating agency refused to follow all the rules of IMBRA.

Someone here seems to wish that this had not happened.

My theory on why particularly married men argue in favor of IMBRA is that they are miserable and don't want single men to be having a great time. I have never seen a single guy favor IMBRA.

The irony about the law being called a "marriage broker" law is that some guys don't intend to marry anytime soon.

[Admin]

....."I think they simply did not have, or want to spend the kind of money needed to take things 'to the top"......"Then why haven't you done just that?"......."In principle, not really different than financial transactions that land you in bed with a nice hoe"......."What's the difference between a pimp and a  'broker'?"......." Anyone that is in 'need' that bad should indeed be barred from contacting 'her' and should seek relief elsewhere.".........

....."Weak arguments IMHO".......

Weak Arguments?   Indeed.

Oh yes, been there, done that with this poster.  Another great example of the pot calling the kettle black

MidnightinMoscow, Khankrumthebulgar, and any others who know that IMBRA has violated some of your constinutional rights, it will do you no good to debate this with the individual BC.  In fact if you do, even in a very polite, professional manner, and if in the process your counter shows him to be the [deleted] he is, your post's could just disappear.  It has happened to me.  Of course mangement apoligized, did not know this happened, but never did repost my very polite and effecient counter debate while allowing his to stand.

Do not concern yourself, do not waste your time with responding to anything you find objectionable with what BC writes. Its best just to let BC promulgate his assertions and not try to contend his perspicacity. 

Jack,

Your post is out-of line. There is no place in a reasoned debate for name-calling. None. Knock it off.

As for BC, my experience with him is that he is reasoned and balanced. His views are often the views we would hear in any intelligent debate. He rarely, if ever, has a 'dog in the fight' - and I know with certainty he is not a TJC plant, nor taking a pro-IMBRA stance per se - although, like many, he has opinions - and some of those opinions are not favorable toward the world of international marriage agencies. He has that right. It differs from yours. It may differ from mine. RWD is big enough for both those, and other, perspectives.

- Dan

[Admin]

Dan,

Please let BC know your take on his comments about IMBRA being like the "No Call" legislation where women have apparently told the US government, via a form, that they don't want to be contacted by American men.

You do want IMBRA overturned by the courts yourself.

Most IMBRA debates online have not devolved into insults. They have mostly evolved into the other person admitting that at least parts of IMBRA are unconstitutional.

They often save face by saying "I never said I was for IMBRA, I was just being a devil's advocate".

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

Even on such feminist forums as Feministing.com, Jessica won't praise IMBRA in any new topics because she knows that some of her own members are now convinced that there is a serious problem with this law.

A really good example is the Fred Thomson supporter who kept condemning older men who might date a twenty-something woman, using the most vile language. I won the argument when I noted that Fred Thompson himself was 24 years older than his wife and he is overweight and bald like the people he assumed he was condemning. After that, the guy said "your problem is that you assume that I was pro-IMBRA when I was just stating my opinion about ugly old guys who date much younger women". Whatever. Any reader could see that there was no longer any disagreement about IMBRA itself, just about whether older men had the right to be happy or not. :-)

Jim,

There are several presumptions in your post.

First, I have known BC online for several years. I have rarely seen anyone who is more balanced in his perspectives and rational in his arguments. He is highly-intelligent, and will accept if others have more convincing arguments. BUT, he is a very vigorous debater when motivated, and I have seen few who are able to keep up. He has lived overseas extensively in numerous countries - currently Italy, and is, in fact, married to a RW and they share children together.

Next, as to my motives with IMBRA. I don't like the law. I believe elements of the law are unconstitutional. I believe much of IMBRA was instituted when our politicos were asleep at the wheel or were snookered by slicker tactics. I expect some of IMBRA to be overturned. I do NOT expect all of IMBRA to be overturned. I think there are a sufficient number of slimy characters in the business of making international introductions that SOME level of guidance/legislation/controls are warranted. To that end, we went so far as to develop an Agency Code of Ethics and created a website to promote it (www.CertifiedMarriageAgencies.org).

What else?

- Dan