Fox News "iFeminist" Writer has it right...

[Gary Bala]

Wendy McElroy's Op-Ed piece gets it right on the new IMBRA law:

'Mail-Order Bride' Law Brands All American Men Abusers

Check it out:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180487,00.html

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

Although I don't see anything that pertains to me, this law was rushed through without any real logical thought.  I am not an attorney, but I think that it could be challenged on many points.

Just like the liars that the current govt. has shown itself to be, it now appears that they don't give a damn about our personal privacy (like spying on us without our knowledge).  This law could have been instantiated in more logical ways with a little effort and thought, but that is too much to ask of the current govt.

It is just another case of the Ugly American impressing his closed-minded beliefs upon everyone.  Sounds like the Christian fundamentalists (or can you say Al Qaeda???). It looks like we are slowly reverting to a form of communism. I guess we have to live with it for a couple more years, since the majority of you put them in there.

Sometimes I just sit back and laugh, and I am so glad that I didn't vote for him.  I don't believe in rewarding poor performance.  The past is a reasonable predictor of the future (statistically-speaking).

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by EbonyPrince on Jan 12, 2006

Just like the liars that the current govt. has shown itself to be, it now appears that they don't give a damn about our personal privacy (like spying on us without our knowledge). _______________

What kind of bullshit is this?  Can you provide any evidence of your claims?

Or are you just anther Bush hating Affirmative Action loving homosexual supporting left wing nut case?

And I do not believe in god and am a libertarian so there goes your theory about the Christian right bullshit.

It is people like you who scare the hell out of those of us in the middle.

[Kiltboy1]

... in response to Re: Re: Fox News "feminist" Wr..., posted by Heat on Jan 13, 2006

Cris

Come on man. You and i are alike in may ways, but it seems lately that anyone that does not agree with Bush is a commy pig ? what gives. Our country is free because we can choose to suport whom we please and this new law is just an example of some of those freedoms being taken away from us. Remeber, it was not a Dem that signed the bill into law, it was GWB and for that, he is not on my most liked list. His plicies as of late are really confusing.

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Fox News "feminist"..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 13, 2006

Kilt,

Please give me ONE example of a freedom that has been taken away from you.

Give me just ONE example.

BTW, I am not a Republican.  I do not believe in god and I am not in agreement with Bush on many issues.  But I dislike liars and fools.

I am waiting for your example.  Give me ONE.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Fox News "feminist"..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Jan 13, 2006

Do you agree with Ebony that IMBRA is some kind of "Christian fundamentalist" plot?

ROFLMAO!

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Fox News "iFeminist" Write..., posted by EbonyPrince on Jan 12, 2006

What in the hell are you talking about?

This a FEMINIST plot, so what is all this crap about Christians, Al Queda, spying, communists, voting for "him", and "the majority of you put them in there"?

If you want to bitch at someone, start with the author of this bill... Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Washington.

Sheesh!

[Hamlet]

... in response to Have you been drinking?, posted by Ray on Jan 12, 2006

The sponsor of the bill in the House was Republican James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.

In both houses of Congress the votes were unanimous, thus, all Republicans and all Democrats voted for it. The president is a Republican and he signed the bill into law.

Hamlet

[Heat]

... in response to Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 12, 2006

Cantwell say it again.............. LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

[Ray]

... in response to Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 12, 2006

But we aren’t discussing the entire bill, are we? In case you haven’t noticed, we have been discussing the “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act” (IMBRA).

The original bill you mentioned was introduced in the House in July, 2005 by Rep Sensenbrenner as the “Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009” (H.R. 3402) and contained no reference to IMBRA.

The bill was later amended in the Senate (SA 2681) and became known as the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”. The “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005”, which is the topic of discussion here, came under Title VIII, Subsection D of the final bill.

The current version of IMBRA is largely based on the original “International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003”, sponsored by MARIA CANTWELL. This has been Cantwell’s baby from the beginning.

Ray

[Hamlet]

... in response to Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Ray on Jan 13, 2006

I dont see it on his web site now, but two weeks ago Sensenbrenner was bragging about his role in protecting women with the IMBRA law.

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Hamlet on Jan 13, 2006

I think you are confusing apples and oranges. IMBRA is only a very small part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) part of the bill. I suggest that you read the entire bill (H.R. 3402) so that you can understand how the IMBRA portion of the SENATE amendment could get lost in the whole mess and get approved on a voice vote at the end of the congressional session just before the recess.

Perhaps you were confused two weeks ago and really read Maria Cantwell’s press release where she was crowing about HER legislation to protect “Mail Order Brides” finally being passed.

http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=250270

Your feeble attempts to portray IMBRA as some kind of Republican plot are silly and uninformed. I know all of this legal stuff is probably confusing you, so may I suggest that instead of relying on a layman’s explanation of this subject, perhaps you should discuss this with an informed attorney so that he can possibly straighten you out. I highly recommend Gary Bala  :-)

Ray

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Clarification to Your Clarification, posted by Ray on Jan 13, 2006

After everything that happened in the mid-90s, don't we already have laws that protect women?

I know that along with O.J. thing and someone being killed with a bat in Ohio, Ohio got very strict with Domestic Violence laws to the point of being ridiculous.  This is all because our officials weren't doing their jobs in protecting these people in the first place.  

In retrospect, nothing was done to prevent these abused people from voluntarily going back to these abusive men.

Bottom-line is these officials are only trying to make up for their mistakes in not protecting their public (IMHO).

[EbonyPrince]

... in response to Have you been drinking?, posted by Ray on Jan 12, 2006

First of all, It was still signed without regard to all the points made against the bill.

My point is that you have people trying to control how we live our lives (right and left), and this bill is just one of those controls.  Obviously the bill was signed and/or attached to other signed bills without regard to what was really contained within.  It was sped through the process without applying common-sense logic like so many other bills/laws/actions etc.

My heart goes out to anyone that is abused in any relationship, but abuse is abuse whether its an American bride or a foreigh bride.  Obviously somewhere someone didn't do their jobs, and that is why the situation happened.  So Who is this law really protecting?

If more issues were put in front of the majority of people, without special interests, my feeling is that we would have better laws/actions which would reflect the true will of the people.  That clearly isn't what is happening today, because there are people that feel they know more about what is so-called "right" or "right for us" or right for anyone better than we (the people) do (hence my comments)...

[BogotaJim]

... in response to Fox News "iFeminist" Writer ha..., posted by Gary Bala on Jan 11, 2006

I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone on this board who have taken positive steps to deal with this unjust new legislation and special thanks to Gary Bala.  I, myself have been in denial since I first became aware of this- my thinking was this just can't happen here in the good old USA.  Like many of you I am thinking this legislation could deal a fatal blow to our freedoms and for me put un ugly end to 16 good years of matchmaking.  Thanks to Wendy's excellent article and insight into the wrongs brought by this legislation I now want to fight like everyone else to stop this from being enforced as is.  This summer Fox News did a positive television show re Colombian Marriage Agencies on "A Current Affair " see for yourself at "http://latinlifemates.com/home.asp".  I will contact them with the latest news and hope that they will pick up on this.  I hope that others can by whatever means go to the media and expose all the flaws in this  new legislation like Gary and Wendy have already done.  Maybe we can embarass those responsible for this thoughtless piece of legislation.  

Jim Heinrich

President- Latin Lifemates