Thursday, January 31, 2013
Petition to require women to sign up for selective service
Sign the petition to include women in the selective service program. Why should men be the only ones required by law to sign or go to jail and/or be denied educational benefits? Why should women be exempt? If you don't like this inequality then sign the petition. IF we're so equal why are men's lives worth less than women's? We're not inferior to them as they are not superior to us. Signing the petition will guarantee equality.
Defeat H.R. 11
The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bills introduced recently in the House and Senate ignore well-documented problems.
These VAWA Reform Principals are vital to the creation of an effective and comprehensive domestic violence bill: click here
Today we'd like you to call your Representative. Tell them, "Say NO to H.R. 11 and YES to Real VAWA Reform!"
Find your Representative by zip code here:
p using those phones or email! Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Sounds good. It seems that the feminasties are going for it again and we have to stop them. No problem we can do that so let's do it to it. It might also be a good idea to get in touch with Congressmen John Boehner and Eric Cantor and let them know how we feel about this They are the Republican leadership in the House so it's a good idea to let them know as well.
These VAWA Reform Principals are vital to the creation of an effective and comprehensive domestic violence bill: click here
Today we'd like you to call your Representative. Tell them, "Say NO to H.R. 11 and YES to Real VAWA Reform!"
Find your Representative by zip code here:
p using those phones or email! Thank you!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Sounds good. It seems that the feminasties are going for it again and we have to stop them. No problem we can do that so let's do it to it. It might also be a good idea to get in touch with Congressmen John Boehner and Eric Cantor and let them know how we feel about this They are the Republican leadership in the House so it's a good idea to let them know as well.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
VAWA is back as S.47,defeat S.47
Today we have an urgent request.
As we told you last week, S. 47, a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill has been introduced in the Senate. Unfortunately, S. 47 is very similar to last year's VAWA and ignores well-documented problems.
You'd think that with all of the controversy surrounding VAWA, the Senate would afford time for discussion and the possible addition of amendments. But this may not be the case! Word is that it may skip the Judicial Committee and go straight to the floor for a vote!
We believe that these VAWA Reform Principals are vital and urgently needed to create a comprehensive and effective VAWA: click here
Our urgent request: Please call your Senators RIGHT NOW. Tell them, "Say NO to S. 47 and YES to Real VAWA Reform!"
Find your senators here.
Let's show them what we're made of. Use those phones!
Thanks!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Directora
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
P.S. Please help us grow our efforts. And share this e-lert with a friend.
Or you can email them. Looks like they're trying an old game on a new Senate hoping to get their way of putting the burden upon men even more but we've got to tell them it won't work we're not going to take it anymore.
As we told you last week, S. 47, a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill has been introduced in the Senate. Unfortunately, S. 47 is very similar to last year's VAWA and ignores well-documented problems.
You'd think that with all of the controversy surrounding VAWA, the Senate would afford time for discussion and the possible addition of amendments. But this may not be the case! Word is that it may skip the Judicial Committee and go straight to the floor for a vote!
We believe that these VAWA Reform Principals are vital and urgently needed to create a comprehensive and effective VAWA: click here
Our urgent request: Please call your Senators RIGHT NOW. Tell them, "Say NO to S. 47 and YES to Real VAWA Reform!"
Find your senators here.
Let's show them what we're made of. Use those phones!
Thanks!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Directora
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
P.S. Please help us grow our efforts. And share this e-lert with a friend.
Or you can email them. Looks like they're trying an old game on a new Senate hoping to get their way of putting the burden upon men even more but we've got to tell them it won't work we're not going to take it anymore.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Boycott Godiva Inc.
I read an article on Godiva chocolate at A Voice For Men and after reading it I'm calling on a boycott of all Godiva chocolate products. There are practicing misandry by excluding men who better society. This Valentine's Day do not buy Godiva products only buy from their competitors. You can also let James A. Goldman,CEO of Godiva Inc. know that you will no longer be buying products from Godiva Inc. His email address is ceo@godiva.com. Don't bother with writing some flunkie in "letters" department when we can write the head guy. Just say "no" to Godiva Inc.
The NCFM starts a Montana State University chapter
Congratulations to the National Coalition For Men for starting their Montana State University chapter. It is good to see that the MRA cause is coming to college and university campuses where it is so badly needed to counteract the feminist garbage that has been heaped upon the men of colleges and universities nationwide. Hopefully there will be more to follow. Things are looking up.
The plight of men today
The amazing thing to day is that college girls do porn videos like this video yet if go you near her you can be accused of some sex crime. I mean think about it. One of those bitches from Girls Gone Wild can falsely accuse a guy and everyone will think she is a vestal virgin about it and that he is the guy in raincoat that hangs around playgrounds. Boys or girls,today's college girl doesn't give a fuck who she fucks but she has no problem fucking over men. Here is an illustration:
We've seen this attitude in the media,courts and society in general. Women insensitive to men's pain:
Even if they inflict the most damaging harm to little boys:
We see this in a society that not only condones it but enables misandry as well. However we are seeing a backlash at women:
We're getting in their faces:
We've tried to be nice. What did that get us? Husband mutilators like Lorena Bobbitt and Catherine Kieu Becker. We tried to be nice. What did that get us? Husband killers such as Mary Winkler and Clara Harris. We tried to be nice. What did that get us? School teachers and other older females who take advantage of the young males in schools and other institutions. We tried to be nice. What did that get us? Misandric lopsided laws that disfavor men even when the men are victims of female on male domestic violence. We've tried to be nice, What did that get us? A kick to the groin and other forms of sexual violence.
No more Mister Nice Guy:
We've seen this attitude in the media,courts and society in general. Women insensitive to men's pain:
No more Mister Nice Guy:
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Matt Dubay,Mel Feit take on Roe vs. Wade's anti-male sexism
Men's-Rights Activists to Sue for Right to Decline Fatherhood
Published March 08, 2006
Associated Press
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich. Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said. Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Source:click here
I want to thank brother Mel Feit for promoting this and not only helping Matt Dubay but other men in this situation. Dubay's girlfriend had the option of abortion which she did not pursue. Matt and other men like him do not have that option. Women can terminate their parental rights merely by dropping the child off at a police or fire station or a hospital with no questions asked. Men are unable to terminate their parental responsibilities no matter what. Kim Gandy referred to the unborn baby as a "child" usually feminists refer to unborn children as "fetuses". I guess if it benefits a woman it is a "child" if it doesn't it is a "fetus". Feminists hate fetuses and want to destroy as many as they can but they hate men even more that is why they want Dubay to fail.
Published March 08, 2006
Associated Press
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich. Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said. Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
Source:click here
I want to thank brother Mel Feit for promoting this and not only helping Matt Dubay but other men in this situation. Dubay's girlfriend had the option of abortion which she did not pursue. Matt and other men like him do not have that option. Women can terminate their parental rights merely by dropping the child off at a police or fire station or a hospital with no questions asked. Men are unable to terminate their parental responsibilities no matter what. Kim Gandy referred to the unborn baby as a "child" usually feminists refer to unborn children as "fetuses". I guess if it benefits a woman it is a "child" if it doesn't it is a "fetus". Feminists hate fetuses and want to destroy as many as they can but they hate men even more that is why they want Dubay to fail.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The new military
Welcome to the new more female friendly military where GI Joe has everything but a penis and if he does we will neuter him for you. Yes,it seems that today's military man can defend the country but he better be female friendly while doing so which means avoiding anything sexual,unless you're gay in which case "don't ask don't tell" goes into effect. It seems that in today's military in is no problem if two members of the same sex engage in sexual relations but if it is a heterosexual couple the man's career is in the toilet. I've read a lot of articles where a lot of MEN in command roles were penalized. Anyone want to bet that women will also be held accountable and not given a pussy pass,which will counter my bet? Don't rush up all at once. The military is going to look different in a few years: with more female commanders and homosexual commanders calling the shots to female and homosexual soldiers. Very few straight guys will want to join the military at this point considering it is a hostile environment (potential for sexual harassment and all that) that a lot of them won't join. If you are a female today's military will make you feel "non-threatened" if you are heterosexual male today's military will make you feel anything but.
Anglo Saxon pussies 2
I recently posted this video about the Anglo-Saxon culture and I just want to elaborate that the chivalry this bastard has heaped upon us far outweighs any benefits he may have given to whatever society is cursed enough to endure him. He accomplishes nothing with his foul emasculating church with his accursed god that spread misandry and mistrust throughout the land. He raises his daughters to be the castrators of men just as he himself is castrated. His foul sons are eunuchs too. Foul half-men one and all. He needs to discipline his woman but he can't for he is a gelding;a ladyboy. He is only fit to wear women's clothes like the eunuch he is. He can only dream of being a real man that a MRA is but since he gave up his testicles to his women and his pederast church he can only dream. He will never be a real man because to be a real man you have to be a genuine MRA. There are no exceptions. Ever.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Let's tell Beau Biden to expunge Gordon Smith's arrest record
Father of two, Gordon Smith was the victim of 14 false police reports by his ex-wife Tiffany Marie Smith of Dover, Delaware. Mr. Smith was falsely arrested nine times for various domestic violence charges, one terrifying time at gunpoint.
Tiffany Smith was caught in her web of deception last September after she cut herself and lay in a ditch, accusing Mr. Smith of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Police used Gordon's electronic device to confirm that he was nowhere near Tiffany at the time, and Tiffany was finally arrested.
Unfortunately, Gordon Smith's arrest record was never expunged. These records will be available to any and all future potential employers. So Tiffany's rein of terror continues.
Today I'm asking you to contact Delaware Attorney General Joseph "Beau" Biden, lll. Tell him: "Expunge Gordon Smith's arrest record!"
Beau Biden Contact Info
beau.biden@state.de.us
(302) 577-8500
Gordon is the Delaware Coordinator for our Domestic Violence Legislative Project (DVLP). Not only does he want to encourage others who have been falsely accused to join the DVLP, he wants to invite you to a public hearing. This is what he had to say:
On Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 the Delaware Family Law Commission will have its annual Public Hearing in Legislative Hall located in Dover. This is an opportunity for citizens of Delaware to share their thoughts regarding the domestic violence policies of the state. SAVE's Delaware chapter of the Domestic Violence Legislative Project will be actively participating in this event.
So join Gordon at the hearing if you can, join the DVLP if you want to become more active in reform, and make the call to Beau.
Thank you all for your dedication,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Sounds great. Let's tell Beau Biden to ease up on Gordon Smith and expunge his record so it doesn't become a burden in the future. This is a burden he didn't ask for but it is one that Tiffany Marie Smith should be held accountable for. She is the one to cause this damage she should be the one to pay. Let's hold her accountable let's contact Beau Biden today.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tell Congressman John Boehner to oppose S. 1925
From SAVE service:
Even though the 112th Congress adjourned without reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA is still very much in the picture.
As you may remember, last year the Senate passed their reauthorization of VAWA, S 1925. Not satisfied with the Senate's bill, the House passed their own version.
Then we had a standstill. There were reports that they were trying to come to a last minute agreement, but it didn't happen.
Immediately following the adjournment, supporters of S 1925 started pressuring the House to vote on the Senate version of VAWA. But why should they? They've already approved a reauthorization of VAWA - HR 4970.
We believe that if persons in the Senate sincerely want to pass VAWA, they should put HR 4970 to a vote in the Senate.
Please call House Speaker John Boehner TODAY.
Call: 202-225-6205
Say: "Do not agree to the ridiculous demand to schedule a vote on the Senate VAWA bill, S. 1925.
We have worked hard to reform VAWA. Let's not let all of our hard work go to waste!
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Let's contact Congressman Boehner and tell him to oppose S. 1925. The more of us he hears the better so let's contact him right away.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Incoming House and Senate
There are new arrivals in Washington,DC and a lot of them are more pro-libertarian than the previous Congress. That is why I say we greet them and congratulate them on their victory and then inform them about men's rights issues. Congressional districts change as well so you may have to find your Representative and/or Senator. Let's put our best foot forward by letting them know that men's concerns are legitimate and something we are going to lobby very heavily in favor of. Let's get to them before the feminasties do.
Let's thank Cantor for standing up to Biden
The 112th Congress has adjourned without reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
SAVE has consistently advocated for improvements to VAWA. We have worked hard to educate legislators. Among other things, we held several lobbying events throughout the year. We even wrote our own language, the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA) to show that we can serve all victims of domestic violence while reducing waste, fraud and false allegations.
We are happy to report that some of SAVE's key reforms were included in HR 4970, the House version of VAWA. Rest assured, our efforts to achieve VAWA reform will continue in the next session of Congress.
Please call House Leader Eric Cantor today, and thank him for his principled and courageous support of VAWA reform. Call: (202) 225-2815
Looking forward to 2013,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
You can also email him and thank him. It took someone with guts to go against Biden and we all win because of his courage. I'm writing in,just like on all my activist postings I participate with you. Will you write in as well?
SAVE has consistently advocated for improvements to VAWA. We have worked hard to educate legislators. Among other things, we held several lobbying events throughout the year. We even wrote our own language, the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA) to show that we can serve all victims of domestic violence while reducing waste, fraud and false allegations.
We are happy to report that some of SAVE's key reforms were included in HR 4970, the House version of VAWA. Rest assured, our efforts to achieve VAWA reform will continue in the next session of Congress.
Please call House Leader Eric Cantor today, and thank him for his principled and courageous support of VAWA reform. Call: (202) 225-2815
Looking forward to 2013,
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
You can also email him and thank him. It took someone with guts to go against Biden and we all win because of his courage. I'm writing in,just like on all my activist postings I participate with you. Will you write in as well?
VAWA goes down in flames
House GOP blocks Violence Against Women Act
By Steve Benen - Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:13 PM EST
Associated Press
Sen. Patty Murray has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act. Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).
And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.
Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.
But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.
And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:
The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first.
Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.
As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.
Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. As I reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome.
Source: click here
Now this truly is a belated Christmas gift. We did it. With everyone's help is getting the message out and the truth about VAWA we were able to let everyone know that we mean business. The second good news is the incoming Congress is more libertarian minded than the outgoing Congress was which means that their best chance of passing VAWA just left town. That doesn't mean we get complacent not by any means. If VAWA should rear its ugly head again we take it down. Until then pat yourselves of the back for a job well done.
By Steve Benen - Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:13 PM EST
Associated Press
Sen. Patty Murray has been the Democratic point person on the Violence Against Women Act. Congress had a lengthy to-do list as the end of the year approached, with a series of measures that needed action before 2013 began. Some of the items passed (a fiscal agreement, a temporary farm bill), while others didn't (relief funding for victims of Hurricane Sandy).
And then there's the Violence Against Women Act, which was supposed to be one of the year's easy ones. It wasn't.
Back in April, the Senate approved VAWA reauthorization fairly easily, with a 68 to 31 vote. The bill was co-written by a liberal Democrat (Vermont's Pat Leahy) and a conservative Republican (Idaho's Mike Crapo), and seemed on track to be reauthorized without much of a fuss, just as it was in 2000 and 2005.
But House Republicans insisted the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans -- and they'd rather let the law expire than approve a slightly expanded proposal. Vice President Biden, who helped write the original law, tried to persuade House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to keep the law alive, but the efforts didn't go anywhere.
And so, for the first time since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act is no more. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic point person on VAWA, said in a statement:
The House Republican leadership's failure to take up and pass the Senate's bipartisan and inclusive VAWA bill is inexcusable. This is a bill that passed with 68 votes in the Senate and that extends the bill's protections to 30 million more women. But this seems to be how House Republican leadership operates. No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first.
Proponents of the law hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.
As for electoral considerations, Republicans lost badly in the 2012 elections, thanks in large part to the largest gender gap in modern times, but if that changed GOP attitudes towards legislation affecting women, the party is hiding it well.
Update: Reader AG asks about the House version that was approved several months ago. As I reported at the time, the House gutted the bipartisan Senate bill with a watered-down version, which was widely seen by everyone involved as a joke that undermined the interests of victims. It had no support in the Senate and drew a White House veto threat. House Republicans knew this, and instead of revisiting the issue and/or working with the Senate on a compromise, GOP leaders simply decided the law was not a priority. The result was this week's outcome.
Source: click here
Now this truly is a belated Christmas gift. We did it. With everyone's help is getting the message out and the truth about VAWA we were able to let everyone know that we mean business. The second good news is the incoming Congress is more libertarian minded than the outgoing Congress was which means that their best chance of passing VAWA just left town. That doesn't mean we get complacent not by any means. If VAWA should rear its ugly head again we take it down. Until then pat yourselves of the back for a job well done.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Tell your congressperson and the House Speaker to reject Reid's amendment
From Campaign For Liberty:
The statists’ sweetheart “deal” rammed through the U.S. Senate at 2 a.m. this morning – while they thought absolutely no one was looking – is set to be voted on in the U.S. House at any minute.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Without your action, I’m afraid this radical “deal” will pass.
And here’s a brief description of what’s about to hit you and me . . .
It’s all taxes and virtually zero cuts.
In fact, it’s $41 in taxes for every $1 in cuts that likely will never come! All in all, it’s over $600 BILLION in new taxes!
After all, according to the politicians, our nation’s $16.4 TRILLION debt has nothing to do with their spending, their irresponsibility, or their recklessness.
It’s your fault, they say.
They just don’t have enough money, because the American people are so greedy, they want to keep the money they’ve rightly earned – instead of giving it to politicians to WASTE.
Of course, they tell you and me taxes are only supposed to go up on the evil “rich!”
The small business owners. The job creators.
By engaging in class warfare, and convincing “average” folks you don’t have a stake in the fight.
Nothing could be a bigger LIE. Any sane person understands just who is going to be paying the price for all the politicians’ madness and our skyrocketing debt.
It’s going to be you, me - and our children and grandchildren.
Future generations of Americans will pay the price with lost liberty and lost opportunity.
But the statists know this so-called “deal” to send taxes skyrocketing is a total affirmation of all their spending, all their government growth, all their assaults on our liberties, and all their bailouts, borrowing, and printing money out of thin air.
And should this “deal” pass, they’ll think they have a blank check to continue.
It’s up to you and me to stop them. It’s up to you and me to fight back.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Time is running out, so please act at once!
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
P.S. The new “deal” rammed through at 2 a.m. this morning is a joke. In fact, it’s $41 in taxes for every $1 in spending “cuts” that likely will never come.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Sounds great. You can find your Congressperson here and write John Boehner here. Some of the programs they can cut are female favoring programs that exclude men,you may want to discuss that. Let's see if we can get some female favoring programs cut. Let's do it.
The statists’ sweetheart “deal” rammed through the U.S. Senate at 2 a.m. this morning – while they thought absolutely no one was looking – is set to be voted on in the U.S. House at any minute.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Without your action, I’m afraid this radical “deal” will pass.
And here’s a brief description of what’s about to hit you and me . . .
It’s all taxes and virtually zero cuts.
In fact, it’s $41 in taxes for every $1 in cuts that likely will never come! All in all, it’s over $600 BILLION in new taxes!
After all, according to the politicians, our nation’s $16.4 TRILLION debt has nothing to do with their spending, their irresponsibility, or their recklessness.
It’s your fault, they say.
They just don’t have enough money, because the American people are so greedy, they want to keep the money they’ve rightly earned – instead of giving it to politicians to WASTE.
Of course, they tell you and me taxes are only supposed to go up on the evil “rich!”
The small business owners. The job creators.
By engaging in class warfare, and convincing “average” folks you don’t have a stake in the fight.
Nothing could be a bigger LIE. Any sane person understands just who is going to be paying the price for all the politicians’ madness and our skyrocketing debt.
It’s going to be you, me - and our children and grandchildren.
Future generations of Americans will pay the price with lost liberty and lost opportunity.
But the statists know this so-called “deal” to send taxes skyrocketing is a total affirmation of all their spending, all their government growth, all their assaults on our liberties, and all their bailouts, borrowing, and printing money out of thin air.
And should this “deal” pass, they’ll think they have a blank check to continue.
It’s up to you and me to stop them. It’s up to you and me to fight back.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Time is running out, so please act at once!
In Liberty,
John Tate
President
P.S. The new “deal” rammed through at 2 a.m. this morning is a joke. In fact, it’s $41 in taxes for every $1 in spending “cuts” that likely will never come.
That’s why it’s vital you call your Congressman, Rep. Jerry Lewis, at (202) 225-5861 and DEMAND Rep. Jerry Lewis vote no on this outrageous scheme IMMEDIATELY.
While you’re at it, call Speaker Boehner’s office at (202) 225-6205 and tell him to oppose this statist scheme.
Sounds great. You can find your Congressperson here and write John Boehner here. Some of the programs they can cut are female favoring programs that exclude men,you may want to discuss that. Let's see if we can get some female favoring programs cut. Let's do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)