Blogs 4 Brownback

March 28, 2007

IMBRA Open Thread

Filed under: Open Thread,Perverts — Psycheout @ 8:10 pm

Just in case anyone other than “Freedom” wants to address this issue, I give you an open thread to chat about it. Our About page is not the proper place for such a discussion.

IMBRA stands for International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005. It is designed to protect mail-order brides and to regulate the associated industry built around the concept. Apparently it is controversial to some.

The beginning of the “debate” is after the jump.

  1. I expect support for Brownback to decline. Right now he is polling around 1-2%. But when Iowans learn about the Senator’s pathetic legislation, he’s going to drop to zero.I am referring to the ridiculous bill cosponsored by Senator Brownback named the ‘International Marriage Broker Regulation Act’(or IMBRA). Brownback’s bill is one of the most pathetic, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ANTI FAMILY laws in the history of the United States. This draconian bill, which became law on March 6th, 2006, implies that ALL Americans (mostly Conservative American men) are violent sexual abusers and wife beaters unless proven innocent. I DISAGREE!!!

    IMBRA was discreetly attached to another bill, the ‘Violence Against Women Act of 2005?. This law is better described as the ‘International Romance Regulation Act’, which is exactly what it is. Under Senator Brownback’s outrageous law, all Americans must submit a detailed criminal background report in order to communicate with a woman in a foreign country. How absurd! The form is likely to get lost in the mail, and she will have no incentive to respond and send back her approval (again by postal mail) without a photo or bio. This law applies for all forms of communication including: e-mail, telephone, postal mail, text messaging, and in-person meetings. Penalties are severe: $25,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison for saying ‘Hello’!

    In order to drum up support for his atrocious bill, Senator Brownback along with other proponents (radical feminist group Tahirih Justice Center) concocted the sinister-sounding label ‘marriage broker’. What is a ‘marriage broker’? It is nothing more than an introduction or penpal service. So now all-of-a-sudden according to the U.S. Government, a penpal service will now be known as a ‘marriage broker’. For your information Senator Brownback, nobody is getting married, and nobody is being ‘brokered’ when two consenting heterosexual adults decide to communicate.

    This law also scrutinizes ALL international marriages no matter how the couples actually met. Most international marriages do not involve sinister-sounding ‘marriage brokers’, but because the government has no way of knowing how a couple actually met (it is none of their business anyways), they decided to crack-down on all visa petitioners. Now any irrelevant DUI’s, misdemeanors, fraudulent protection orders, and even arrests not leading to any conviction must be disclosed to your fiancee, which is a good way to become un-engaged. This is exactly what Senator Brownback and the feminists want. Their goal was to shut down introduction agencies and to keep American men away from foreign women. This law is a SCANDAL based on fraud, deception, cooked statistics, ‘manufactured’ hysteria and propaganda regarding abuse and trafficking of foreign women to support ulterior motives. In reality, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY CONVICTIONS FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVOLVING AN AMERICAN-OWNED INTRODUCTION AGENCY. And THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTED CASES OF ABUSE PRIOR TO MARRIAGE OF FOREIGN WOMEN BY AMERICAN MEN WHO USED A PENPAL OR INTRODUCTION SERVICE.

    On December 16th, 2005, Senator Brownback told his colleagues in the Senate that the “Tahirih Justice Center are frontline experts” and that customers of ‘marriage brokers’ (a false label) “need to clean up their act”. No Senator Brownback, you “need to clean up your act”. After he was elected, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. But his draconian law violates the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

    Senator Brownback claims to be Pro Life, yet for this bill he teamed-up with radical left wing Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who openly supports the murder of human fetuses. He claims to support traditional marriages, yet his asinine bill criminalizes communication and love letters by heterosexuals. He has partnered with a wacko feminist not-for-profit organization named after an Iranian martyr: the Tahirih Justice Center. Senator Brownback has alot of explaining to do.

    So far Brownback hasn’t talked about his IMBRA law during the campaign. Is he afraid of something?

    Comment by Freedom — March 28, 2007 @ 6:08 pm

  2. I notice you have posted this exact same drivel elsewhere. You are a kook and probably work for one of these pathetic marriage broker services. Do you also support NAMBLA, weirdo? You are not welcome here.Your logical fallacy of guilt by association (oh no Brownback worked alongside Cantwell!) alone is worthy of contempt. I’m not going to debate you. Slink back to whatever cesspool you crawled out of.

    I would be pleased if those in the mail-order bride industry refused to support Sam Brownback. Same goes for those in the human trafficking industry. He needs neither their approval nor their support.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 28, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

  3. No, not really. Just trying to get the message across. Senator Brownback isn’t talking about his crazy law, and neither is the media.I never asked for IMBRA. In fact I never knew anything about the law, until after the bill was already signed by President Bush. Instead of calling me a “kook”, why don’t you discuss what you think about Senator Brownback’s pathetic law?Now the government will decide who you can communicate with. Now the government will decide who you marry. Therefore, the government will decide if you can start a family. ‘International Marriage Broker Regulation Act’ is something that belongs in a Communist country where you have no Freedoms. LOVE IS NOT A CRIME!

    The proponents of IMBRA want you to think this law helps to protect women. Problem is the women are not in America. They are in foreign countries. And this law does nothing to protect Americen women right here in the U.S. who socialize with American men. Congress’ job is to protect Americans–not foreigners.Senator Brownback and the other proponents EXEMPTED large American-owned dating services such as match.com, e-harmony.com, Yahoo personals, FreindFinder, etc., offering NO protection for American women, or even the thousands of foreign women who use those services.

    This law has nothing to do with national security. IMBRA is the first law of any kind to regulate romance between consenting heterosexual adults. I think that’s outrageous. This law totally contradicts what Senator Brownback stands for: family values, and traditional marriages between a man and a woman.

    Senator Brownback partnered with the Tahirih Justice Center, an organization named after an Iranian martyr and murderer. He even said in a speech that they are “frontline experts”. Yes, they are experts alright in manufacturing a problem to support ulterior motives: to keep American men away from foreign women.

    Senator Brownback used the derogatory, offensive, outdated phrase “mail order bride”. He needs to know that when two consenting adults decide to communicate, nobody is being shipped through the mail, nobody is being ordered, and nobody is getting married.

    I am not some left-wing liberal nut who decided to participate here. I am a conservative who is appalled with Seantor Brownback’s bill. My constitutional rights have been violated. Also, I want to know what his connections are with the Tahirih Justice Center. In September last year Senator Brownback was the keynote speaker at the annual fundraiser for this organization. Tahirih Justice Center received Federal grants for the amount of $745,000 for 2007. This information is missing from their website for some reason.

    Comment by Freedom — March 28, 2007 @ 7:16 pm


  4. International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 – Prohibits an international marriage broker from providing any U.S. client with any personal contact information of any individual under the age of 18.
    Prohibits a marriage broker from providing any U.S. client with the personal contact information of any foreign national client 18 years of age or older until the marriage broker has: (1) collected certain background information from the U.S. client; (2) provided a copy of such background information to the foreign national client; (3) provided the foreign national client information about legal rights; (4) received consent from the foreign national client to release personal contact information; and (5) informed the U.S. client that he or she will be subject to a criminal background check.
    Requires a marriage broker to collect specified background information from each U.S. client.
    Sets forth penalties for marriage broker violations.
    Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to repeal the mail-order bride provision.
    Provides for the dissemination of a pamphlet about the resources available for immigrant victims of domestic violence to: (1) foreign national clients of marriage brokers; and (2) beneficiaries of K-visa petitions.
    Amends INA to set forth new K-visa processing provisions.

    Guess what, my friend? According to INS, “In addition, a 2003 survey of programs providing legal services to battered immigrant women across the country found that over 50 percent of these programs had served immigrant women clients battered by American men they met through international marriage brokers.”

    So, not only are you a weirdo, who can’t find an American woman who’ll fall for his act, but you’re also a liar who’s throwing a hissy fit because you won’t be able to fool some poor non-English-speaking woman into thinking you’re a great guy. Tell me this, Freedom — what do you have to hide that you wouldn’t want your own WIFE to know? Sounds like a marvellous foundation for a strong marriage, if you ask me.

    Comment by Lyssie — March 28, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

  5. No, I do not work for an introduction or penpal service. As I mentioned on my first message, ‘marriage broker’ is an incorrect sinister-sounding label created by feminists. Nobody is being ‘brokered’ and nobody is getting married.No, I do not support NAMBLA because I don’t even know what it is.

    I am not the one who worked with radical liberal Cantwell–Senator Brownback is. I wouldn’t go near anyone who supports murdering human fetuses.I haven’t called you any names. I just want to make people aware that the Senator is not the conservative he claims to be. His law declares that everyone is GUILTY until proven innocent. That’s not what this country stands for.

    Comment by Freedom — March 28, 2007 @ 7:29 pm

  6. Freedom, I think you got lost on your way to the IMBRA blog. This is not the proper place to have this discussion. If you want to respond in one of the “family” themed threads, go ahead. Comment by Psycheout — March 28, 2007 @ 7:33 pm

  7. The proponents of IMBRA want you to think this law helps to protect women. Problem is the women are not in America. They are in foreign countries. And this law does nothing to protect Americen women right here in the U.S. who socialize with American men. Congress’ job is to protect Americans–not foreigners.

    You disgust me.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 28, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

61 Comments »

  1. Sorry that there was some mangling of the comments. I don’t know how to move them and the copy-paste may not have kept all the formatting intact. All of the words are there. So if anyone is interested, the discussion can resume here.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 28, 2007 @ 8:26 pm | Reply

  2. Psycheout,

    I really appreciate that you decided to keep this topic open for discussion. You could have deleted everything, as some moderators do when they read something contreversial that they don’t like. Thank you! I am a conservative, and we probably agree on 90% of any other issues.

    Your introduction above is great except this sentence: It is designed to protect mail-order brides… First, ‘mail order brides’ is a false and derogatory label. You should replace that with ‘foreign women’. Second, this law is NOT designed to protect ‘mail-order brides’. That’s what the proponents want you to think. Actually, the law is designed by radical Bahai feminists to keep American men from contacting foreign women because they beleive that the women are exploited. The proponents of IMBRA used propaganda and sensationalism regarding abuse of foreign women and non-existant human trafficking to support a hidden agenda.

    Lyssie, do you believe everything that you read? Just because you think that the report is from the INS, does not mean that it’s true. I ask that you please read my answer with an open mind because I am going to tell you about COOKED STATISTICS.

    You copied parts of the actual Text of the Legislation. Here is a link:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3657

    The INS report refers to Paragraph (2), which is the paragraph ABOVE the sentence that you copied. Your sentence is actually part of Paragraph (3): “In addition, a 2003 survey of programs providing legal services to battered immigrant women across the country found that over 50 percent of these programs had served immigrant women clients battered by American men they met through international marriage brokers.”

    The Bill Text does not say who did the survey. But I know. And they conveniently forgot to tell you 50% out of how many? The survey was done by the Tahirih Justice Center, so the results are biased. They actually surveyed 175 U.S. legal-aid groups. 50% of 175 is 88. Here’s the proof (go about half way down the page):

    http://movingoutmovingon.bloghi.com/2005/11

    Now this gets interesting. Within the period of 5 years there were 25,000 international marriages (based on 4,000 to 6,000 international marriages a year). So this means there could be as few as 88 abuse cases out of 25,000 marriages! That works out to an abuse rate of 0.35% vs. an estimated 7% overall national abuse rate. Senator Brownback exempted domestic dating services from his bill even though the abuse rate is 20 times higher! What’s the logic in that?

    Furthermore, out of the 25,000 international marriages, the majority of the couples did NOT meet through sinister-sounding marriage brokers anyways (formerly known as introduction or penpal agencies). So the numbers could even become less. And, the numbers will be reduced further if you figure in fabricated abuse charges.

    Lyssie, I have NOTHING to hide. I just don’t like this law. Like I said on previous messages, IMBRA declares that Americans are GUILTY unless proven innocent. Why do I need a permission slip to say ‘Hello’, but it is OK for Americans to say ‘Hello’ to Americans without a permission slip? Logistically, this law IS difficult to comply with, since the permission form will likely get lost in the mail, and she will have no incentive to approve the form and mail it back to America, without any photo or bio of who she is approving!!! Also, there was no guarantee that there will be any connection between the American man and the foreign women even before IMBRA.

    This law is ATROCIOUS and everyone involved with the SCANDAL needs to be investigated.

    Psycheout, you say that I disgust you but you don’t say why? Shouldn’t the job of Congress and our government be to protect Americans first? Where’s the protection for Americans who use dating services and suffer from a 20 times higher abuse rate???? Don’t foreigners have governments and laws within their own countries to protect them?

    IMBRA completely ignores domestic relationships. Senator Brownback and the other left-wing proponents EXEMPTED match.com, e-harmony.com, Yahoo personals, etc. AND they EXEMPTED the foreigners that use those services. Is that fair?

    American mega-dating services were exempted because they are large publicly-traded corporations with lawyers and lobbyists to fight the feminists’ stupid law. Instead, Senator Brownback and his feminist friends decided to go after the small mom-and-pop services specializing in international matchmaking.

    Just because someone does not personally like something, does not mean that there has to be a LAW. There’s alot of things in society I don’t like, but I don’t think Congress needs to make law to regulate them. On top of that, what business is it of anyone do regulate LOVE and communication between consenting adults? That’s pathetic!

    Comment by Freedom — March 28, 2007 @ 11:20 pm | Reply

  3. Psycheout, you added something in number 2 above about human trafficking.

    Just so everybody here knows, there has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE CONVICTION FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVOLVING AN AMERICAN OWNED INTRODUCTION AGENCY OR PENPAL SERVICE (now known as a sinister-sounding ‘marriage broker’ according to the government)!

    In order to bolster support for their outrageous law, the proponents tried to link introduction agencies / penpal sites with Human Trafficking, but there hasn’t been any!

    On July 13th, 2004, Senator Brownback moderated a Senate subcommitte hearing with the absurd title of ‘Human Trafficking: Mail Order Bride Abuses”. Problem was that there wasn’t any Human Trafficking! And he used a false and derogatory label, ‘Mail Order Bride’, which I equate with the “N” word.

    For this hearing, Senator Brownback conveniently forgot to invite anyone from an introduction agency / penpal service (now known as a sinister sounding ‘marriage broker’, or any couples out of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF SUCCESSFUL, HAPPY INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGES.🙂

    Comment by Freedom — March 28, 2007 @ 11:57 pm | Reply

  4. I really appreciate that you decided to keep this topic open for discussion.

    I am a magnanimous host.

    Your introduction above is great except this sentence: It is designed to protect mail-order brides… First, ‘mail order brides’ is a false and derogatory label.

    Too bad. Mail-order brides, whether derogatory or not is the commonly understood term at this time. I won’t bow down to euphemisms that nobody other than those in the know will understand. Sorry.

    And if the law prevents exploitation of vulnerable people both from our land and foreign lands without preventing eventual marriage, I’m all for it. There’s a lot of scammers out there and there’s plenty of predators.

    Psycheout, you say that I disgust you but you don’t say why? Shouldn’t the job of Congress and our government be to protect Americans first?

    I care about life, all life. You don’t seem to give a damn about exploited women in other countries. That’s what disgusted me. You personally don’t necessarily disgust me, but what you said did.

    Don’t foreigners have governments and laws within their own countries to protect them?

    In many cases, no, unfortunately not. Fortunately we can do better.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 28, 2007 @ 11:59 pm | Reply

  5. Oh, take a close look at this post and the comments on the About page. Are you satisfied that they are the same? I am planning on deleting the original comments so I want you to verify that they are the same.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 29, 2007 @ 12:01 am | Reply

  6. Just so everybody here knows, there has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE CONVICTION FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVOLVING AN AMERICAN OWNED INTRODUCTION AGENCY OR PENPAL SERVICE

    Congratulations on your weasel words. What about foreign owned and operated “mail-order bride” services?

    Comment by Psycheout — March 29, 2007 @ 12:08 am | Reply

  7. Nobody is exploited. When a man or a woman volunteer to enroll with an international matchmaking service, what makes that exploitation??? But it’s OK with Senator Brownback for large domestic-dating services to be exempt from any regulation? Wouldn’t that be exploitation too according to your beliefs?

    You say that you care about all life. So do I. But since when does regulating communication with someone in another country, have to do with saving a life? Even if it did, the proponents of this asinine law intentionally EXEMPTED Americans from the same protections.

    I never said that I don’t give a damn about exploited women in other countries. I don’t consider the innocent act of signing-up with an introduction agency to be exploitation in the first place.

    You are using the word “many” when you should be using the word “some”. The proponents of IMBRA do that alot in their carefully-worded propaganda. But I agree with you, in “some” countries the laws are different than ours. Guess what? It’s outside of our borders, therefore outside of our jurisdiction! Did you ever hear of “cultural differences”? Congress should be concerned with what goes on within our own country first, but with IMBRA Congress is only protecting foreigners.

    Where’s the protections for Americans who want to communicate with other Americans using large internet ‘Domestic Marriage Brokers’ (match.com, e-harmony.com, Yahoo personals, FriendFinder, etc.)??? Where’s the protections for the foreigners that use those services???

    Like I told you before, the abuse rate is about 20 times higher with Domestic relationships, and these are people right here in our own country, but Senator Brownback and his radical feminist Bahai freinds created a huge loophole by EXEMPTING them!

    ‘International Marriage Broker Regulation Act’ is SCANDAL based on fraud, cooked statistics, deception, propaganda, and manufactured hysteria to support ulterior motives to keep American men away from foreign women. They tricked Congress into believing the hype. Furthermore, the bill was discreetly attached to another bill, and nobody in Washington is checking if the bills are Constitutional.

    Senator Brownback is a lawyer. Did he forget what was he taught in law school about our Constitution? I want to know specifically what is Brownback’s involvement with the Tahirih Justice Center?

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 1:28 am | Reply

  8. Regarding your comment under number 6.

    First, I never use the derogatory, offensive, false label “mail order bride” that Senator Brownback and his liberal feminist friends use.

    Second, the reason I used “AMERICAN OWNED INTRODUCTION AGENCY” is because they are being regulated, along with their customers–law abiding American citizens who are now declared GUILTY until proven innocent.

    Foreign owned and operated introduction agencies are not effected by IMBRA because they are in foreign countries, therfore outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

    merican owned I don’t know what goes on with foreign owned introduction agencies. This outrageous law regulates American-owned introduction agencies and penpal sites (what the government now all-of-a-sudden call ‘marriage brokers’). Foreign owned

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 1:49 am | Reply

  9. This law sounds like a good idea to me. Should keep out some of the illegals trying to marry their way into America. I expect Brownback to gain support, once knowledge of this law comes out.

    “No, I do not support NAMBLA because I don’t even know what it is.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha!

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 29, 2007 @ 1:51 am | Reply

  10. I am not an immigration attorney. But here is what I can tell you:

    There are 2 types of illegals: ones that are already here in the U.S., and ones who used to be here but got deported.

    In either case, the illegal can not get a green card (and become legal) by marrying an American, because they have already broken the law.

    I think an American is allowed to marry an illegal alien that is already in America, but the illegal alien will not have a green card.

    IMBRA has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Ha ha ha ha!

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 2:13 am | Reply

  11. “IMBRA has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Ha ha ha ha!”

    Oh yeah, like your wife isn’t going to bring her family and their friends and their friends’ families over as soon as you’re done throwing out the welcome mat. Even if you’re wife is here legally, the 35 other people she sneaks in won’t be.

    Nice try, NAMBLA-backer. Ha ha ha ha ha!

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 29, 2007 @ 4:05 am | Reply

  12. Like I told you before, the abuse rate is about 20 times higher with Domestic relationships, and these are people right here in our own country, but Senator Brownback and his radical feminist Bahai freinds created a huge loophole by EXEMPTING them!

    Well, he had to start somewhere. I’ll contact the Senator and see if he can’t work on closing those loopholes for domestic matchmaker sites, if that makes you feel better.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 29, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Reply

  13. I don’t know, but two federal judges disagree with “freedom.” In fact, one just found the following fact on Monday: “The rates of domestic violence against immigrant women are much higher than those of the U.S. population as a whole and have in common with women
    brokered through international marriage brokers a number of factors, including the
    dependency of the immigrant woman on the U.S. citizen for her legal status.”

    You can see the 40 pages of a federal judge telling Freedom that he’s completely wrong at http://www.usaimmigrationattorney.com/JudgeCooperDecision.pdf

    You can also see this press release:

    http://www.tahirih.org/legal//docs/PressReleaseGeorgiaIMBRADecision.pdf

    Comment by Journalist — March 29, 2007 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  14. Freedom posted the same screed here. He seems to have a personal stake in this.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 29, 2007 @ 1:46 pm | Reply

  15. Journalist, no I am not completely wrong. You are. First, you should never believe everything that you read from any source. Second, you should never have faith in our Judicial system. Do you think the court was right with Roe v. Wade? Do you think the court was right with O.J. Simpson?

    Actually only 1 Federal Judge disagrees with me. With the Ohio case last year, the lawsuit was dropped by the plaintiff because they ran out of money. When they realized they were battling a gorilla with unlimited resources, they gave up. I’m referring to the radical Tahirih Justice Center and their mega-law firm Arnold & Porter. The Judges in both cases allowed Tahirih Justice Center to intervene, despite the fact that they are NOT the defendant, despite the fact that they were outside of their Judicial District, and despite the fact that Tahirih Justice Center was already the writer and primary proponent of the law, which was a conflict of interest.

    So far the Tahirih Justice Center has been allowed to write the law, lobby politicians, defend the law, and the next step they will get away with is enforcing and prosecuting the law. They get to do the government’s job!

    The Tahirih Justice Center received federal grants of $745,000 for 2007 alone. They do not put this information on their website because they don’t want anyone to know. I bet Layli Miller-Muro must have a nice house purchased with our taxpayer money. Also, their mega-law firm Arnold & Porter worked for free in both cases.

    Regarding the Georgia case, there were 2 problems: 1) Judge Cooper believes everything that he is told. 2) The plaintiff’s attorney was over-confidant and did basically nothing after the intervenor’s testimony was allowed. If you compare Judge Cooper’s final ruling with Tahirih Justice Center’s testimony, I see alot of plagiarism.

    Your statement above “The rates of domestic violence against immigrant women are much higher than those of the U.S. population as a whole” IS WRONG. Please read my comments near the middle of this page, just below 14 Comments >>, number 2. That was a comment made to Judge Cooper by Tahirih Justice Center. Doesn’t mean that’s correct. Tahirih Justice Center is very good at FUZZY MATH. I proved that what they say is 50% is actually 0.35%, while the national average for domestic relationships is 7%. Therefore, the abuse rate with international relationships is 20 TIMES LESS!

    Think about it. If an American man wants to abuse a woman, wouldn’t be alot easier and cheaper for him to abuse a woman that’s already in America? Why would he go through the trouble of finding someone to abuse from a foreign country?

    Another false study that Tahirih Justice Center always brings up (that Judge Cooper believed) was that “49.3% of immigrants reported physical abuse by an intimate partner during their lifetime.” What they forgot to mention was that this survey was limited to only Hispanic women in the Washington, DC area, none of whom had met their husbands through a ‘marriage broker’, therefore it has no relevance!

    That Press Release means nothing to me. That came from the proponents of this SCANDAL, so of course it is biased.

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 8:10 pm | Reply

  16. Sisyphus, your comments are so silly and off-topic I hardly feel that I should respond. How could I be a NAMBLA-backer when I didn’t even know what it is?

    So out of curiosity I looked-up NAMBLA. I am well aware that Senator Brownback is a major proponent of Traditional Marriages (or opposite sex marriages), also the ‘Federal Marriage Amendment’ to the U.S. constitution.

    OK, he doesn’t approve of homosexuality. But why is he criminalizing HETEROSEXUALS with IMBRA? Senator Brownback is a HYPOCRITE!

    How about this. I have another example of Brownback’s HYPOCRICY Senator Brownback sponsored a bill to allow doctors, nurses, and other health care workers to immigrate to America to work in rural areas where they are needed. Sounds like a great idea, but at the same time he has criminalized immigration and even communication with foreigners!

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=176540&

    http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=252448&

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm | Reply

  17. Why can’t you just meet a lady in a bar like everybody else? I don’t get these online dating things. Are you ugly or something?

    Comment by JOE — March 29, 2007 @ 10:13 pm | Reply

  18. Joe, I don’t go to bars beacuse I am opposed to alcohol.

    But with Brownback’s asinine law, it would be the same as having to fill out a permission form and giving it to the person in the bar before you are allowed to even say ‘Hello’. That’s how crazy Senator Brownback’s law is!

    I don’t understand why not one person here get’s it.

    No I am not ugly. I’m not going to explain why I would want to use an international penpal service (the correct label). I might offend an American feminist with my answer. But I’ll mention one thing. I don’t like tattoos on women, and there’s not many American women left that don’t have any.

    Comment by Freedom — March 29, 2007 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

  19. “Sisyphus, your comments are so silly and off-topic I hardly feel that I should respond. How could I be a NAMBLA-backer when I didn’t even know what it is?”

    Because after you tried to talk your way out of the fact that marrying an alien legally will result in 20-40 illegal aliens coming in with her, I consider your honesty on these matters highly suspect. Still do, in fact.

    “Joe, I don’t go to bars beacuse I am opposed to alcohol.”

    Prohibition didn’t work, Statist.

    “No I am not ugly.”

    All G-d’s children are beautiful.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 30, 2007 @ 2:26 am | Reply

  20. Freedom,

    You truly are a very sad case. We will all believe you over two federal judges. Yes, indeed. And the reason there is plagerism as you put it, is simply because the Tahirih Justice Center and their lawyers proved their case. If there was a trial for a car accident, and I said the light was red, and you said the light was green. And I proved that the light was red by showing the court a photograph, would you call it plagerism if the judge in his opinion said, “the photograph shows the light was red, therefore I find the light was red.”

    You need help. You are just wrong. This is excellent legislation, that as the court said, will save lives from being harmed by the likes of you.

    Comment by Journalist — March 30, 2007 @ 8:31 am | Reply

  21. Journalist, Do you work for the Tahirih Justice Center? Are you a radical feminist Bahai? Did you read my previous messages?

    I PROVED HOW THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER COOKED THE STATISTICS WITH FUZZY MATH FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. WHAT THEY CLAIM IS A 50% ABUSE IS ACTUALLY 0.35%!!! WHAT THEY CLAIM IS 49.3% IS ACTUALLY FOR ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE WASHINGTON, DC AREA, NONE OF WHICH MEN THEIR PARTNERS THROUGH WHAT ARE NOW CALLED ‘MARRIAGE BROKERS’ (formerly known as introduction agencies or penpal sites)!!! What do you have to say about that? I am waiting for your response.

    Furthermore, I already told you that the lawsuit in Ohio was dropped. Get it? Therefore, only the ruling for the Georgia case applies!

    Apperantly Judge Cooper believes everything he is told without verifying if the statements are accurate or not. The attorney for the Plaintiff did a poor job in responding to the LIES of the Tahirih Justice Center.

    Why was Tahirih Justice Center allowed to intervene in the first place? Isn’t the Attorney General capable of doing his own job? Tahirih Justice Center is NOT the defendent. They were outside of their Judicial District. They wrote the law therefore should not be allowed because it’s a Conflict of Interest.

    I’m waiting for your response about the FUZZY MATH. Let’s hear it.

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 9:25 am | Reply

  22. The mail order bride brokers dropped their lawsuit in Ohio because the federal judge told them that they were not going to win their case: “The Court does not find that Plaintiffs have
    demonstrated a substantial likelihood of prevailing on this claim. The Government asserts two substantial interests in support of its regulation: preventing the abuse of spouses and the Constitutional authority to regulate immigration. Having heard oral arguments from the partes, the Court cannot say that there is a substantial likelihood of Plaintiffs prevailing.”

    And this: “Plaintiffs’ asserted Freedom of Association claim fails for the same reason. They recognize that “IMBRA does not completely deny a citizen’s right to marry….” Id. at 27. In fact, it does not impinge on this right at all.”

    And this: “The government
    asserts that men who pay for access to a foreign bride harbor a heightened sense of ownership that leads to potentially higher rates of abuse. While Plaintiffs have put forward some statistical evidence that tends to debunk this theory, it is not sufficient to support a conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim.”

    Or how about this: “In the absence of a likely First Amendment violation, the public interest is upheld by allowing the enforcement of a law designed to limit the occurrences of domestic abuse.”

    It’s all here for anyone to read:
    http://www.veteransabroad.com/denied.pdf

    As for the rest of your post, it is so ridiculously stupid, that it doesn’t deserve mentioning (your statistical analysis is brilliant though — did you graduate college?). Maybe you ought to learn about “intervening” and how it is done. As for “outside their Judicial District” .. what in blazes are you talking about??

    Face it, you lost because your position is just idiotic, and EVERYONE from judges to newspapers, to bloggers sees that.

    Comment by Journalist — March 30, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Reply

  23. I’m not going to explain why I would want to use an international penpal service (the correct label). I might offend an American feminist with my answer.

    No, please do enlighten us. I’m very curious as to why you’ve decided to eschew American women.

    Comment by Lyssie — March 30, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Reply

  24. Why won’t you answer the question? You keep avoiding the issue. Why? Is it because you already know this is FUZZY MATH?

    I’ll explain it again for everyone to know what a FRAUD the Tahirih Justice Center is. They MANUFACTURED the 50% abuse rate by taking a survey from 175 U.S. legal aid groups. 50% of 175 is 88 alleged abuses. Within the period of 5 years there were 25,000 international marriages. So this means there could be as few as 88 abuse cases out of 25,000 HAPPY, SUCCESSFUL MARRIAGES! That works out to %0.35–NOT 50% AS THE TAHIRIH JUSTICE CENTER WANTS EVERYONE TO BELIEVE, which 20 times less than the estimated 7% abuse rate with domestic marriages.

    I am still waiting your explaination about the 49.3% abuse rate which came from a survey of Illegal Hispanic Immigrants in the Washington, DC area, NONE OF WHICH HAD USED THE SERVICES A SINISTER SOUNDING MARRIAGE BROKER (formerly knows as an introduction agency or penpal service)! What’s your explaination for that???

    OK we agree that the charges were Dropped in Ohio, therefore what the Judge said is NOT relevant. Your reason as to why the charges were dropped is WRONG! The reason why they were dropped is because the Plaintiff ran out of money. Like I already said, the Plaintiff does have some big shot national law firm working for free. Also, they don’t have $745,000 of taxpayer money to use.

    Since you seem to know so much, tell me where are the protections for thousands of foreign women profiled on mega American-owned ‘Domestic Marriage Brokers’ like FreindFinder, match.com, e-harmony.com, and Yahoo personals? Or are you going to just not answer that question too?

    The abuse rate for Domestic marriages is 7%, which is 20 times higher than the abuse rate with International marriages, so why didn’t the Tahirih Justice Center write a law to regulate ALL Americans who use ‘Domestic Marriage Brokers’? Additionally, where’s the law for everyone in America to provide a police report to their fiancee when they get married?

    The pathetic proponents of IMBRA decided to criminalize all international marriages despite the fact that most couples never even used sinister-sounding ‘marriage brokers’ (formerly known as penpal sites or introduction agencies). This draconian law was intended to punish ‘marrage brokers’ and their customers. It’s right in the stupid name of the law: “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act”. So why are couples who did NOT meet using sinister-sounding ‘marriage brokers’ regulated?

    Your comment “The government asserts that men who pay for access to a foreign bride harbor a heightened sense of ownership that leads to potentially higher rates of abuse” IS TOTAL B.S. What ‘sense of ownership’? THAT ACCUSATION IS FALSE AND PURE NONSENSE.

    And yes, I did graduate college. But apparently the proponents of IMBRA already forget what they were taught in law school about the U.S. Constitution. This includes Layli Miller-Muro, Jeanne Smoot, Bo Cooper, Ross Goldstein, Randy Miller, and Sam Brownback–all lawyers who don’t have any idea what our Constitution is. Everyone in Congress and the President took an oath to uphold our Constitution, but they FAILED.

    The Georgia was filed in the ‘United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia’ but Tahirih Justice Center is located in Virginia. That’s what I’m talking about. They have NO BUSINESS intervening in a Georgia case, furthermore that organization wrote the law, therefore they have a conflict of interest! Isn’t the government (the Attorney General) capable of doing their own job?

    You never answered my previous question if you work for Tahirih Justice Center? Are you a radical Bahai feminist?

    I’m really getting tired that you are not answering all of my questions. Maybe it’s because you know that I am right.

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 11:22 am | Reply

  25. Ok…last time…

    (1) It’s too bad you didn’t make the case to the federal courts instead of the lawyers, I’m quite sure, based on your excellent articulation of the issues, that you would have done a much better job and the judges would obviously have been persuaded to decide the cases the other way.

    (2) Okay, if you really want me to show you where you’re wrong on the statistics, the survey of providers showed that 50% of them had at least one contact with abused mail order brides. Thus, it’s 88 agencies have at least one case. Each of them may have had 1000 cases of mail order bride abuse cases, we don’t know….so your analysis is as wacked as the rest of your rant.

    (3) So because the Tahirih Justice Center is in Virginia, they can’t get involved in a case in Georgia, huh? I guess Boeing has to stay in Seattle, Coca-Cola and CNN can only do cases in Atlanta, and Sears has to stay in Chicago. Good to know…

    Oh, and I’m having way too much fun watching you go apoplectic to answer your other questions.

    Comment by Journalist — March 30, 2007 @ 11:39 am | Reply

  26. I’m not going to explain why I would want to use an international penpal service (the correct label). I might offend an American feminist with my answer.

    I would like you to go ahead and offend American feminists, Freedom. They don’t hang out here anyway. So you’re safe. You won’t get beaten up. After all, I did you the favor of giving you an open thread for this topic.

    I think the answer as to why you want to use an “international penpal service” to meet women would get to the root of the matter, that is, why you’re so obsessed about this subject. It would be illuminating.

    So far there’s been a lot of heat, but precious little light. So please explain your true motivations.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 11:45 am | Reply

  27. “I don’t like tattoos on women, and there’s not many American women left that don’t have any.”

    My girl has one tatoo. More like a brand. It says “JOE”. You must be ugly or awkword if you have to go on the internet to say “hello” to women.

    If you can’t tame an American woman and need a timid poor girl from oversees I feel sorry for you. I think the law is needed for weird people like freedom.

    Comment by JOE — March 30, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

  28. “we don’t know”. “we” implies that you are an employee of Tahirih Justice Center.

    So you “don’t know” how many abuse cases there were from the 88 agencies? Just like Layli Miller-Muro doesn’t know how many abuse cases there were when she was asked by Bill O’Reilly. Actually your analysis is WACKED BECAUSE YOU “DON’T KNOW”!!!!! Therefore, IMBRA is based on data provided from an organization who “doesn’t know”!!!!! I think I’ll tell that to my Representative and to Judge Cooper.

    You are falling apart. I like debating you without some big shot law firm backing you up for free. IMBRA IS A SCANDAL BASED ON FRAUD, PROPAGANDA, SENSATIONALISM, DECEPTION, LIES, COOKED STATISTICS, FUZZY MATH, AND ‘MANUFACTURED’ HYSTERIA TO SUPPORT ULTERIOR MOTIVES. Your organization is pathetic.

    Your statement that the the legislation “will save lives from being harmed by the likes of you” is outrageous. You are accusing me of going to harm someone in the future. Are you psychic? Just like your asinine law which declares that all American men are spousal abusers and serial rapists until proven innocent!

    I still want to know where’s the protection from violent American men for the thousands of foreign women on FriendFinder, match.com, e-harmony.com, and Yahoo personals that were deliberatly EXEMPTED from the law? Where’s the protection?! Answer the question.

    Where’s the protection for the American women right in our own country who suffer from a 7 times higher abuse rate? Answer the question.

    What about the Ayuda study of illegal Hispanic immigrants around Washington, DC? Answer the question.

    I haven’t even mentioned the Natalya Fox SCANDAL based on Immigration Fraud that was created by the Tahirih Justice Center, using it as a foundation for IMBRA…

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  29. I still want to know where’s the protection from violent American men for the thousands of foreign women on FriendFinder, match.com, e-harmony.com, and Yahoo personals that were deliberatly EXEMPTED from the law? Where’s the protection?!

    Don’t worry. I’m awaiting a response from Senator Brownback on this issue. I’m hoping that he will take steps to close those loopholes. IMBRA was just the beginning. But at least American companies are more trustworthy than those owned and operated by organized crime in foreign countries.

    Maybe you ought to seek out hot foreign women on e-harmony.com while you still can.

    You still haven’t answered Lyssie’s question and mine. Don’t test my patience by repeating the same phrases over and over again in mile long rants without at least addressing our short and to the point questions.

    Thanks, The Management

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm | Reply

  30. He’s ignoring me to, Psycheout. No wonder he can’t get any tail. He can’t even carry ona normal conversation.

    Comment by JOE — March 30, 2007 @ 12:58 pm | Reply

  31. Psycheout / Lyssie, I don’t think it’s anyone’s business, nor does it really matter, who I choose to communicate with. Has no relevance to this debate about the despicable ‘International Marriage Broker Regulation Act’. I haven’t asked you about who you choose to communicate with or decide to start a relationship with.

    But the government thinks it’s OK to criminalize love letters and communication between 2 consenting adults. This law is something that Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler would be proud of.

    Your accusation that an introduction agency is ‘owned and operated by organized crime in foreign countries’ is ridiculous. By the way, the international introduction agencies which are now regulated under this stupid law are right here in America–not foreign countries.

    Brownback’s law is atrocious. It is a SCANDAL, but nobody here seems to comprehend that. It’s hard to believe that you guys are Republicans, because you have the intellect of the Democrats.

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  32. Freedom, if you’re going to come and spew multi-paragraph rants all over OUR blog, then yeah, you do owe us a few answers. And I, for one, would like to know why it is so important to you to be able to develop relationships with non-American women?

    Comment by Lyssie — March 30, 2007 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

  33. It’s hard to believe that you guys are Republicans, because you have the intellect of the Democrats.

    No need to get nasty. Keep throwing around ad hominems like that and you’re out of here. I have already informed you that we’re working on closing those loopholes. And you still refuse to answer our calm questions. What are you hiding?

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  34. This law is something that Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler would be proud of.

    Godwin’s Law. You’re hanging by a thread, Freedom.

    These monsters butchered millions of people. They have nothing to do with a law designed to protect vulnerable women from filthy perverts. How dare you insult the memories of all those victims.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Reply

  35. IMBRA is a law that belongs in Communist and Dictatorship countries where people don’t have any freedoms.

    How dare the government interfere with someone’s pusuit of love and happiness! How dare the government tell me who I am allowed to communicate with or say ‘Hello’ to! How dare the government interfere with someone’s right to start a family!

    Like I said before, the feminist proponents want you to think the “law is designed to protect vulnerable women from filthy perverts”. They could care less about foreign women. Their objective is to keep American men away from foreign women because they don’t want the competition.

    Why is that so difficult for you to understand? The Tahirih Justice Center manufactured a problem to support a hidden agenda. This law has SCANDAL written all over it.

    Are you aware that the feminists and proponents of IMBRA are Democrats? Everyone except Brownback. Just this week, N.O.W. endorsed Hillary Clinton for President:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/366/story/55783.html

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  36. feminist proponents want you to think the “law is designed to protect vulnerable women from filthy perverts”.

    Sounds like something a filthy pervert would want me to believe. But seriously:

    Why don’t you find yourself a nice decent church-going American girl? There’s plenty of available women in church. And plenty of church-sponsored get togethers and activities where you could meet a soul mate. Why don’t you try that avenue? Why resort to hooking up with foreign ladies using seedy online meat markets? Isn’t that kind of unseamly?

    How about Christian Singles or Military Friends?

    OK, I’m kidding. But I do think a church social would be a good way to go. There’s plenty of great gals out there.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  37. Wow, this is a busy thread! I finally read it all and what I can’t understand is why anyone would want to get foreign tail through the internet. Smells like desperation. Good luck, Freedom.

    For the record, I see nothing wrong with this law, although I agree that if big American dating sites are exempted they probably should not be.

    Comment by Anti-Media — March 30, 2007 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

  38. I’ve already met my soulmate.

    Do you think there needs to be a law for everything that you personally don’t like? There’s alot of things I don’t like in the world today. I could fill up this whole screen with things that I don’t like. Doesn’t mean there has to be a law.

    Furthermore, I am totally appalled that the U.S. government can interfere with anyone’s fundamental right to pursue love and happiness and a family.
    There are many other unconstitutional laws in this country, but this law has gone too far. It doesn’t belong here. It’s un-American. It implies that all Americans are serial rapists, abusers, and wife beaters until proven innocent.

    Our government was stupid enough to believe Tahirih Justice Center’s propaganda and cooked statistics. I have already proven the deception created by this organization. They need to be investigated.

    Have you ever thought about supporting a different conservative candidate for President? Someone who still supports life and family values. Someone who still understands what our Constitution is. Someone who is not a flip-flopper. Someone who tells it like it really is instead of trying to be politically correct all the time.

    Comment by Freedom — March 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm | Reply

  39. Someone who tells it like it really is instead of trying to be politically correct all the time.

    BLAM! Say goodnight, Gracie.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 30, 2007 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

  40. The upper middle class businessmen who travel and maybe date foreign women (on a rainy day, why not meet someone from http://www.aforeignaffair.com) also date the great conservative women at church socials back home in Kansas.

    So, unless a young American Christian woman’s parents specifically tell her not to date men who are successful, well-travelled and speak other languages…she is likely to want to date exactly the same guys who might also date someone from overseas while on a trip (these foreign women are not prostitutes).

    Anyone with a passport knows that dating sites are not “meat markets” simply because there are less than 50% Americans on them. IMBRA, therefore, is protectionism against social globalization.

    The question is: who among the American women are trying to block the competition? The answer is not young Christian women who know they could easily compete. It is more like someone over 35 who does not want to compete with a 25 year old.

    And I understand that. It is just that you cannot legislate in your interest like that…not where it concerns the ability of men to simply say hello to someone whom they are 99.9% likely not to marry.

    In the year 1907, the Expatriation Act was passed for the same reason in reverse…a male-dominated Congress wanted to stop attractive American women from marrying the males from the Austro-Hungarian and British superpowers. Back then, Vienna and London were the two power centers that the world revolved around and American women often wanted to marry the men from the superpower.

    An American senator exclaimed in 1916 “We don’t want our daughters marrying foreigners”.

    The Expatriation Act was not overthrown until 1932 and not because American women got the vote, but because the situation changed. By 1932, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been smashed and defeated. American women no longer dreamed of marrying a prince in Vienna. So no law was necessary to stop this former competition anymore.

    Now, regarding Brownback’s quixotic campaign to be someone else’s VP candidate: there isn’t a chance that anyone would pick him because the feminists who support him are mostly also for abortion. So he is like a man selling suntan lotion in Scotland during the winter. The first rule of politics is to know what side you are on and not fish for votes among those who are guaranteed to vote against you anyway.

    Those who want Internet Regulation are generally socons…which would explain the hostility to the libertarian who posted above on a socon forum. But those who want Abortion are generally left wingers. Feminists generally want abortion. Feminists who are against abortion are like 1% of the population.

    And that seems to be the base of Brownback’s support right now.

    Now you can argue that background checks for dating is not about feminism and then if you add 1) those who want Internet Regulation and 2) those who are Pro-Life…you could get a potent mixture of socons who would vote for Brownback.

    And maybe you would be correct.

    So why doesn’t Brownback start pushing his Internet Regulation credentials?

    Instead of arguing against Freedom above, why don’t you beg Brownback to finally start discussing IMBRA in public?

    It would be fantastic if Brownback would be openly proud of IMBRA.

    But, instead, he ran quietly to some left wingers at the Vatican Radio English section and slandered the good name of American businessmen who travel to Europe, using the communist argument that people from rich countries who date people from poor countries are exploiting them.

    Let us hear Brownback say that in a speech in America.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — March 31, 2007 @ 4:10 am | Reply

  41. I know that Sen. Brownback has a long hoe to roe, but I did like some of his positions.

    I found this website while googling for his campaign.

    But I must say I am disappointed if his supporters will ridicule people who post complaints about his legislation. I didn’t know about this IMBRA law until I came here but it doesn’t sound like a very intelligent law. However, it doesn’t affect me so I don’t really care.

    I just worry about the Senator having supporters who are so hostile to policy discussions and disrespectful to people who disagree with them. I had the impression that Senator Brownback was himself more tolerant than that.

    Comment by Sara — April 1, 2007 @ 8:57 pm | Reply

  42. Hi Sara. We certainly welcome people who have questions or issues about Sen. Brownback’s record or his legislation. However, the person in question who has the issues is letting his own personal bias against American women cloud the issue. He’s also exaggerating when he says that the government is telling him with whom he can communicate. The two major parts of the law are pretty much this (paraphrased):

    1. No international dating/matchmaking/marriage sites can provide information on any woman under the age of 18. (To me, this seems perfectly fair, and I would definitely question the morals and integrity of anybody who protests not being able to talk to 17-year-olds.)

    2. If the woman in question is over 18, the U.S. guy will have to provide some background info to the dating/matchmaking/marriage service, which will then be passed on to the woman, along with some information about her legal rights, and will obtain the woman’s consent prior to releasing personal information about that woman, and will also do a criminal check on the guy.

    Personally, I really cannot understand why anybody would be upset about this law! It’s not saying, “you can’t talk to foreign women”. It’s saying, “We’re not going to give out a bunch of personal information about foreign women until we give her some information about you first, so that she can decide if she WANTS you to have her contact information.” The agency is not making decisions on behalf of the woman. They’re passing all of that information on to HER, and it’s HER decision as to whether or not she decides she wants to talk to YOU. If she has information about you and decides that you’re not her type and she doesn’t want you to have her phone number — well, that’s what the dating world is all about, isn’t it?

    Comment by Lyssie — April 2, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  43. How incredibly wrong that characterization is. IMBRA very definitely says that even Match.com style of interaction between people on the Internet cannot occur unless the American not only gets background checked, but that the other person signs off on it decide the fact that the other person is OK with their personal contact information being given out freely to everybody in the world (and IMBRA does not prevent this information that the women want given out to be given out to foreign men like Al Qaeda).

    IMBRA prevents women from deciding their own level of security at least as far as what information they are allowed to have published, by their own free will, on American hosted websites.

    If a foreign woman wants to get an anonymous email address at Hotmail, it takes her 4 minutes. Nothing about this personal contact information identifies her person. The only thing bad that could happen would be she gets an email from a man she does not like and blocks it. So she announces to the world that here is her photo and every man in the world can write to her.

    This is her right.

    You cannot take her right away.

    But IMBRA does exactly that.

    Go to http://www.online-dating-rights.com to see that nobody with a brain could ever agree with a law like IMBRA.

    In addition, no Repubican Congressperson who voted for IMBRA and the VAWA will remain in office after November 2008 because IMBRA and the VAWA ticked off at least 1 Million Republican males.

    We are mostly Republican males whom this law slanders and ticks off.

    We are the doctors and dentists and MBAs of this great nation.

    We are the soldiers and Marines and veterans of several wars.

    We have a World War Two veteran at http://www.veteransabroad.com who is going to start reaming guys like Brownback for this outrageous law.

    You are not talking about just “Freedom” here. “Freedom” just decided to post on this blog.

    How many of the 1 Million men who dislike IMBRA could care much about a politician who is polling at 1%?

    You saw Conrad Burns and George Allen and Jim Talent lose their jobs in November.

    Do not think they lost their jobs because of the Iraq War controversy. You can go to http://www.mediaradar.org to see that they lost their jobs because they voted for the VAWA of which IMBRA is a part.

    See the movie “The Little Mermaid” to understand why IMBRA was passed. In that film, the Sea Witch tries to prevent the man from meeting the mermaid. IMBRA was passed by older women who did not want the younger adult competition coming into the country. It is the reverse of the Expatriation Act of 1907.

    Also see the film “Titanic” where an American male dares to speak to a foreign woman in a place where he is not supposed to be and saves her from jumping in the process.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 3, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  44. Ten years ago, people from different countries could not correspond with each other unless they knew each other’s postal addresses (be it a post box or the home where a woman lived with her brothers and father).

    So addresses were given out of course. It was impossible to send background checks by postal mail and get a response back. The world is still such that postal mail takes 4 months to some parts of Russia, etc.

    Russia, however, still works well on the Telegraph (Telegram) system. Very few women have access to email every day because computers cost $1000 and DSL for a month can cost too much.

    It is still necessary to have the home address of a woman in Russia, therefore, if one wants to contact her in any reasonable amount of time.

    Nobody who voted for IMBRA knew about this (nor cared). The purpose of the law was to stop Americans from meeting foreigners as much as possible, not be fair about it when trying to regulate people in the manner in which they say hello.

    Read the book “1984” to see how the government interfered in the relationship between Winston and Julia.

    At the end of “1984”, the government gives Julia important information about Winston that destroys the relationship.

    Winston had yelled “Do it to her” when they brought a cage of rats close to his face.

    Julia, naturally, broke up with him over this.

    But George Orwell, who was a conservative by the way (Orwell was pro-Vietnam War), meant to say in this book that, even if the government had a compelling piece of information to tell one of the people, it was still entirely wrong for the government to interfere in the personal relationships of human beings.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 3, 2007 @ 11:07 am | Reply

  45. Related to the above: You cannot make new laws based on the ability of new technology to allow those laws to exist.

    For instance, You can put security cameras in subways to enforce laws that already exist, but you cannot electronically fingerprint everyone who comes into a subway simply because it now takes two seconds to do that without messing people’s fingers with ink. If you think you can do the latter because of the new technology, then you will logically need to fear even newer technologies that will “unobtrusively” regulate you in a manner you could not even have imagined.

    Ten years ago, it would have been impossible to suggest that women outside the US read and sign background checks and send the signed copies back to any matchmaking agency.

    Ten years ago, American women were giving out PO Boxes at their local post office.

    IMBRA makes it illegal for a woman to have even a PO Box and give this out.

    In the EC court case above, none of this was said. The new case will be comprehensive.

    Meanwhile, any Republican politician who remains silent on IMBRA will lose his seat (except Brownback, whom we know has his seat until 2011).

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 3, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  46. The only person who should support IMBRA is someone who does not think an American woman has the right to give out her personal contact information (anonymous hotmail address, PO Box) without first seeing a man’s background check and signing off on it so the third party is not liable.

    This is about liability to the 3rd party (agency, website).

    The Arnold Porter law firm that is defending IMBRA is on record as saying that they want to win cases against American dating sites for being liable for the introductions they make between people.

    We all know of the many murders and rapes resulting from people meeting on places like Match.com and MySpace.com.

    The only person who would support IMBRA would also support regulating the American sites as well, leading to American women not having the right to decide their own level of security.

    If Match.com was regulated under IMBRA, women could not even chat with somoone via the anonymous webmail system until they wanted to give out further information. IMBRA takes even that option away from women. The background check has to be signed.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 3, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Reply

  47. Anyone who could support IMBRA assumes that every foreign woman has email and can process information ASAP.

    On these sites, it is the decision of the foreign woman to immediately be notified if a nice man is in her home country or city for a few days. Everyone knows that he will likely only be there for a few days. If the government red tape stops them from meeting, this is a catastrophe to all parties involved in most cases.

    IMBRA takes this decision of the woman away by adding two weeks or months to a process that should be immediate. No agency is going to send a $40 telegram to a woman who cannot send a $40 telegram back saying it is OK for the man in her country to send a $40 telegram to her himself.

    The man needs to know the address in order to introduce himself in the $40 telegram at the start.

    The women say beforehand that this is what they want.

    The US Government is overruling their decision, basically saying that they are stupid and childish and have no education and do not know how bad American men can be.

    This is why no Republican who voted for IMBRA has a chance with male voters in 2008.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 3, 2007 @ 11:26 am | Reply

  48. Yeah right, Jack. Because all men use dating websites to meet foreign women. Heh.

    IMBRA critics will be glad to know that it was recently upheld. You’ll probably dislike the decision but like the blog post, since it is critical of the reasonable IMBRA law.

    Comment by Psycheout — April 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm | Reply

  49. More coverage for shady lovesick (emphasis on sick) Romeos seeking docile foreign ladies at Wired: Americans Looking for Romance Online Get No Love in Court.

    Comment by Psycheout — April 5, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  50. That’s what happens when you are hanging around with people like Paris Hilton & Lindsay Lohan.
    Britney Spears has been trying to show off her vagina for quite a while now.

    Opps I did It Again!
    hhttp://hometown.aol.com/VailChretien2844/

    hhttp://hometown.aol.com/VailChretien2844/img/bsvag.jpg
    hhttp://www.freeimageheaven.com/index.php?id=567

    ..and don’t you even try to say it’s an accident.

    [Ed Note: Thanks for crashing my browser and sending me a virus. Jerk. I will hunt you down and kill you, punk.]

    [Ed Note: Email a-hole nashbrigs at mymail@accessmp3.info, IP: 200.203.29.136. What a douche.]

    [Ed Note: This jerk does this everywhere!]

    Comment by nashbrigs — April 7, 2007 @ 9:06 pm | Reply

  51. Psychout,

    No. Not all the Republican men who voted out Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia were thinking of saying hello to a foreign woman online. IMBRA was part of a trend for male politicians to give a so-called “Bipartisan Women’s Caucus” whatever they wanted. Most of the Republican men who fired the above Republicans in 2006 were just ticked off that Brownback and the others voted for the Violence Against Women Act giving billions of $ to radical feminist organizations and took no notice of increasingly anti-male divorce laws, etc.

    You are apparently a woman. An interesting question to ask you is…will you stay with the Republican Party if it suddently decides to reverse the trend toward giving this “bipartisan” caucus whatever it wants?

    Regarding IMBRA, let Brownback know that he has nowhere to go but up so, if he suddenly recognized that IMBRA is only fair when applied at the visa application stage but not when two strangers just say hello to each other online, he would win a lot of respect from everyone and his poll numbers for President would rise.

    Brownback is going nowhere otherwise. He has to start getting creative if he wants respect from the electorate.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 8, 2007 @ 11:49 am | Reply

  52. In other words, let Brownback know that the anti-IMBRA people are allied with the anti-VAWA people at http://www.mediaradar.org and, together, we have a lot of power with Republican males.

    This coming week, we will increase our membership by 50,000 Republican males. Meanwhile, IMBRA is a hot topic now over at Wired Magazine’s blogs.

    Let Brownback know that we did not do any press releases on this last year but we have started to do so now.

    Of course, it is not as if he has to worry about falling poll numbers.

    Comment by Jack Sanderson — April 8, 2007 @ 11:53 am | Reply

  53. To you heterosexual men out there. You WILL obey IMBRA and my vision of Bahai Faith Feminist CHANGE OF WORLD WIDE SOCIETY and the leadership by women with men following on a leash.

    You Christians WILL convert to the Bahai Faith! I do NOT want un-feminized, non-Bahai women coming to this counrty.

    Lycees, journalist and psycheout. You have done good work. Thank you for helping spread my propaganda and for my $80,000 a year taxpayer funded salary. With all the extra money I’m making brainwashing feminists in college, I’ll be able to give Lycees and journalist (some of my Tahrih Justice Center “volunteers”) some extra cash for doing such a great job of infiltrating these blogs.

    Comment by Layli — April 12, 2007 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

  54. Wow, you sure nailed us hard, kook.

    Comment by Psycheout — April 12, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Reply

  55. Sounds like Brownback is too evil or too stupid to be president.

    Comment by George — May 10, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  56. Very insightful, George, why don’t you go burn an American flag or hug a tree or French-kiss a squirrel or whatever it is you moonbats do for fun these days? The adults are trying to have a discussion, here.

    Comment by Sisyphus — May 10, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  57. Hello all

    How I can change avatar in this forum?

    Comment by MaryJames — May 23, 2007 @ 10:24 am | Reply

  58. Hello, my name is Anna! As you can probably tell, I’m a Christian woman who loves Jesus Christ and cares for all humans, even the wicked. What you probably don’t know is that I’m hot. My picture below isn’t really that good. I want to use my beauty for GOD, and want to encourage Christian women (my sisters in Christ) to do the same, according to the Great Commission.

    My homepage

    Comment by AnnaFallos — June 22, 2007 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

  59. Sigh, honestly just look at the history of how IMBRA came about. It is the result of some very bad, very sad cases of a wacko killing the immigrant brides he brought into the US. IIRC, one case was of a guy who lived in Seattle (thus why Sen Cantwell was so big on this) area and one of his russian brides died, the other survived (and went on talk shows I believe).

    IMBRA is classic, feel good legislation that sets precedents for more government control in one’s private life, doesn’t really protect anyone (and certainly DOES NOT protect American women the same way as foreign women) and is a law that ultimately does more harm than good.

    Comment by FP — September 2, 2007 @ 5:39 pm | Reply

  60. Sissyfist and Psychout are liars and post alterers.

    Comment by Spacebrother — September 4, 2007 @ 9:02 am | Reply

  61. Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I’m glad to join your conmunity,
    and wish to assit as far as possible.

    Comment by DamionKutaeff — March 22, 2008 @ 1:56 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: