Positives: Sam is proving to be perhaps the most articulate and thoughtful spokesman the pro-life cause has yet produced.
More importantly, when asked if he could support a pro-choice nominee, Sen. Brownback made perhaps the most important point of the night.
"... somebody that's with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy, that's your friend and that's your ally. And this is a big coalition party. And it's a coalition party that's governed for a number of years in this country. And it governs because it governs with a coalition of economic and social conservatives, and people that want to be strong for the United States.”
That answer, and it was immediate, are the words of a party statesman. The Real Sporer says it often, our nominee is going to be far more representative of virtually every Republican than any Democrat, and those are the only choices. The converse is also true; pro-choice Republicans need to support a pro-life nominee. The principle is almost universal-there is really no one issue that should separate any Republican from our nominee.
Negatives: Sam almost does seem too nice. Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington when we just might need John Wayne in “In Harms Way” or “The Longest Day with the immortal line about our WW2 enemy “Send ‘em to Hell”.
Speaker Points (0-30) 25
14 comments:
This line of argument coming from pro-lifers always intrigues me. They don't think women should have the right to end a pregnancy.
However, they're for a "big coalition," meaning it's ok by them if a white guy running for office as a Republican is pro-choice.
Sounds like they think the varied opinions of Republican men on this issue should be respected (so as to build Republican legislative majorities), but the varied opinions of American women on this issue should not be respected.
Laws should be changed so that American women are forced to live by Brownback's beliefs, but pro-choice Republican males should not feel pressure to change their views.
There are two problems with your argument.
First, American men would also live with the consequences of Brownback's belief. To wit: no abortion to bail out the Randy Andy who fires a little live ammo.
Second, and this is perhaps not a problem for a Democrat, it defines any policy disagreement as prohibiting political unity in a coalition political party. I think this explains a great deal about your parties' substitution of religous belief in leftist ideology for reasoned political discourse.
It' would be terrible to have a President who was too nice, who didn't beat the war drums loudly enough, threatening to send someone to hell every now and then.
He pushed passed a bill making it criminal for men to meet and marry foreign women. He thinks he's a high minded Christian and I appreciate his views against evil abortion but his unrealistic understanding of foreign marriages is beyond my comprehension. In an age of protected classes and PC lawsuits combined with advanced identity theft why would anyone turn over their banking and personal information over to a foreign entity? This law has made it criminal for American men to seek wives outside of America.
International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, or IMBRA. An unconstitutional federal law, which became effective on March 6, 2006, IMBRA makes it a felony to facilitate communications between an American man and a foreign woman, via a fee-based dating Website, without the man first submitting unilaterally to criminal-background and sex-offender checks, and certifying all previous convictions or arrests, marriages or divorces, children, and states of residence since the age of 18. The foreign woman, who owes the American man zero information about herself, must then consent to his contact.
- Nice Job Brownback are you always this clueless and I bet the feminists love you for ths one.
Sam Brownback ought to listen to his own advice about not ticking off constituents who always vote Republican. But in 2005, he pushed through the radical feminist IMBRA law that basically destroys all dating websites that introduce Americans to gorgeous foreign women (like at www.aforeignaffair.com).
What is a radical fem eunuch doing in the Republican Party? Answer: Polling at 1% that's what. Sammy acts like a woman running to the nearest shoe sale whenever radical feminists tell him to do something.
Brownback has consistently slandered American men, including everyone at www.veteransabroad.com, for having the desire to sometimes date women who are not American. To him, American men who date foreign adults are lower than domestic child molestors. We have screenshots of what he's said at Blogsforbrownback, where he is the only one posting.
Brownback is hated in the military. It goes without saying he would have us all arrested for owning a copy of Playboy if he could get the votes for that.
Marc Rudov, the famous anti-feminist TV commenter, just came out with a withering attack on Brownback today:
http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com
Politicians need to remember: You cannot kiss the feet of soccer moms and servicemen at the same time. If no politician speaks out against even "victim feminism" in the campaign, millions of men will simply not vote at all.
For more information on what makes real Republicans vote, check out:
www.online-dating-rights.com
www.mediaradar.org
www.veteransabroad.com
Jim Peterson
Veterans Abroad
Munich, Germany
According to Tristan Laurent, president of OnlineDatingRights.com: “The whole idea that it is now a crime for American men to send emails to women in other countries is so preposterous, it is beyond belief. The judge’s ruling that there is no constitutional violation in forcing Americans to divulge all sorts of highly personal information to a complete stranger or scammer abroad, before the American can even say hello or know to whom he is writing, is only exceeded in foolishness by Congress in making the law.”
IMBRA originally was called the International Matchmaker Regulation Act but did not pass Congress as such. So, it was renamed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act and passed on December 17th, 2005 — as a surreptitious attachment to the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which George W. Bush signed into law. VAWA, an unconstitutional law falsely stipulating that men are overwhelmingly the aggressors in domestic-violence cases, began its nefarious life in 1994, when Bill Clinton approved it.
IMBRA was sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA, and was championed by key women’s groups, especially the Tahirih Justice Center, which made “claims” that foreign women who marry American men are subject to higher rates of abuse than American women. However, the only study addressing this issue was done in 1999 by the INS (now the USCIS), which found that the rate of abuse in international marriages was one-seventh that of domestic ones.
Why were radical feminists from Tahirih so bothered about American-foreign romances that they felt compelled to create and lobby for IMBRA? The scuttlebutt is that they resent American men bypassing them — and the shackles of American feminism — for foreign women, who don’t seem to possess that unique American-style hatred of men.
IMBRA specifically stops the trafficing of women for uses other than marriage and seeks to ensure safe relationships that are mutually benificial. Anyone who would disagree with this bill is a crazy. Their is a group of people that are involved in the blackmarket smuggling of women for uses of prostitution who are oppoesed to this law. Are you one of them Ken??
I have never used an online dating service and my girlfriend of three years is a foreigner I met while serving overseas.
I am aware of this group only because they contacted me to help. This group is not a bunch of men smuggling women as the religious right would have us all believe. In reality, this group is a bunch of men who no longer want to marry American women because of our crazy divorce culture.
Women found overseas are far less likely to divorce their husbands and American feminists have framed the debate another way portraying these men as wife beaters when they aren't prostituting their wives.
I know we already have VAWA provisions that have gone too far - consider American Servicemembers can be prosecuted for even entering an establishment in far away countries if deemed a front for prostitution. Those fronts are we call "Bars" in America and we've gone too far on the VAWA bandawagon. We're carrying water for feminists and the National Organization for Women and don't even know it!
This group only wants the ability to meet perspective wives without having to turn over their entire life history, credit checks, criminal checks, places of residency to possible crooks. Do we have such measures for American matchmakers? Of course not and why is it necessary for them to do so?
I've lived overseas for 5 years now and I can tell you with 100% certainty the women of poor countries don't care what an American is like or has done. They would marry him in an instant just to get to America and have a shot at wealth. The only reason companies need information on an American citizen is for Identity theft.
This addition to VAWA makes criminals of American men meeting foreign women online. Liberal feminists have driven American men to avoid marriage (it's like a loaded gun finding 5 good ones for that one bad one out there) when you can go overseas and find 99 good ones for every bad one. I support their right to find a wife under such circumstances. The National Organization for Women is very angry men reject American women and it is unfortunate the Religious Right fell for this hook line and sinker.
Again, I am not an online dater as I am entirely content with my girlfriend (soon to be wife) that I met in person - not online.
This group also told me they have a lot of money and want to pursue litigation. Anyone know of an interested lawyers ready to make $30K?
Ken,
That was Senator Brownback's staff or Sam himself talking above.
You can see that they go far and beyond the feminists in the bile and hatred they show for vets like you and me.
To the Brownback HQ: Ken here is an Iraq War veteran, a former officer with a hero's resume.
I am a Cold War veteran and I speak fluent Russian and German.
Did you serve your country Sammy Boy?
So Sam: you think Veterans Abroad isn't a bunch of legitimate war veterans who refuse to bow to this feminist law? Do you think the people at Online Dating Rights are black marketers?
This sick paranoia on the part of the Brownback people is badly hurting the Republican Party.
This nonsense has to stop.
The Brownback campaign was supposed to listen to the people at Online Dating Rights and Veterans Abroad, not slander them.
And Sam Brownback: Did you violate the Hatch Act in appearing with the femininist Tahirih Injustice Center on Vatican Radio to slander all American men and veterans and servicemen? You were campaigning while appearing on the radio with a fem org that you funded and slandering all American men who travel overseas.
Meanwhile, I myself am satisfied with my girlfriend but I am fighting this law because it is so incredibly insane.
It is true that guys do meet women just for dating and not for marriage.
Is that the new soundbit for Brownback on this? He thinks guys are getting laid too much?
Why won't the Brownback campaign just come right out and say they do not want American men having premarital sex and they will do anything to stop it?
Meanwhile, most foreign women from Europe (Russia is getting richer by the day because of high oil prices) are not desperate...and I disagree that they would not be turned off if some divorced guy had an undeserved restraining order on his record. They would very much be turned off. As George Orwell said in "1984", a government must not get involved in regulating relationships or providing information to either of the parties about the other.
That was the theme of "1984".
Jim Peterson
Veterans Abroad
But the worst problem with IMBRA is not the unconstitutional information (background checks) that are "disclosed".
It is the fact that forcing foreigners to sign off on any document, means that they have no choice but to use the Internet regularly. Most foreigners who do NOT have regular use of Internet, will never be able to meet an American in a short period of time at all.
Americans are often in foreign countries only for a few days. They need to be able to contact the foreigner immediately if any contact is to occur at all. The foreigners understand this clearly.
IMBRA takes away the rights of foreigners to decide their own level of security. If a foreign woman wants any man, who might be in her country for only 3 days, to be able to call her on her cell phone, she has the God-given right to be able to provide her cell phone number.
IMBRA forces her to read her email before that cell phone number gets in the hands of the man.
But she will probably not read her email for weeks on end.
So the man comes and goes from her country and she only learns about it weeks later.
Or, more likely, the man never filled out the IMBRA form and applies for her consent to contact, because he knew she would not read her email in time for a meeting to take place.
The women will never know that a man was interested but was blocked by IMBRA from even bothering to try to meet her.
IMBRA assumes that everyone has email and IMBRA assumes that women want to get to know a man over a series of emails before meeting.
That is the paranoid US modus operandi. Foreigners often want men to call them out of the blue or send a telegram to the home address or even drop by and introduce himself to the parents and brothers and herself.
The foreigners have the right to decide for themselves which info to give out. If they want to be paranoid, they can join a service that has anonymous webmail. If they want to be accessible to meet American businessmen and our brave soldiers traveling in their home city, they will want to give out one of their cell phone numbers (foreign women often have 2 or more cell phones, with one dedicated to socializing).
Brownback clearly believes US servicemen are undesirable for foreign women to meet. He was one of the people behind blocking Marines from using MySpace.
Brownback has his own Myspace profile by the way.
Two more points on Brownback's radical anti-dating law:
1) Outside of the USA, people tend to use text messaging on cell phones more than email as a way of communicating.
These messages are called SMS's.
It is much more logical to communicate with others via text messaging on one's portable cell phone than to chain oneself to computers, including laptops which are more cumbersome to carry around than cell phones. So the foreigners are being more logical than we Americans who chain ourselves to the Internet (Blackberries have made us Americans less chained to computers).
Plus, even if a young woman in another country is rich, the local crime might be such that it is better for her to lose a cell phone and simply replace its SIM card for $5, than to lose a laptop that costs $1500.
IMBRA CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH OVER CELL PHONES. Messages have to be short and big information exchanges require actually speaking.
Much foreign dating occurs with people meeting over cell phones.
2) Many of the Americans meeting foreigners are the same ones dating other Americans via Match.com.
Like James Bond, a lot of American businessmen date both American women and foreign women.
Match.com, like the international dating sites, does not require that women pay a dime to belong to the service. On most websites, the person who initiates contact is the one who pays the money.
To the Anonymous who said that this wierd law stops human trafficking:
There is not nor ever has been any proof of this. Merely stating something doesn't make it so.
There has never been an arrest for anyone connected with international romance trafficking someone into the US. Never. No one.
People who make such sensationalistic statements with no proof are part of mob rule.
Post a Comment