Brother Tom spells it out:
Our show begins this Monday at 3 PM Pacific. Are you ready?
Not ready? Then GET ready. You can receive the show in any number of ways.
"...over the weekend, we will be changing from a recorded promo to live transmissions of whatever is going on in the studio. Would you like to hear some of the preparations? You are IN!"
Tom Leykis
Get us on your PC/Mac.
Just go to click here. Or you can hear us on your Facebook page at click here (just click on the tab that says "Hear Tom Here"). If you use media players such as Winamp or iTunes, you can find us at click here. Click on either of these options right now to make sure you can receive us so you know that you're ready. Problems or questions? Write us at tech@newnormalnetwork.com for quick assistance. By the way, over the weekend, we will be changing from a recorded promo on our stream to live transmissions of whatever is going on in the studio. Would you like to hear some of the preparations? You are IN!
Get us on your smartphone or tablet. The easiest way to receive us on your iPhone, Android, or iPad is by using the TuneIn app, It's available free at the App Store or the Android Market. Once you install it (which takes less than a minute), just search "Leykis." Simple as that. You can do it now because we're running a promo that will let you know that you did everything right. Then, save the preset to listen to The Tom Leykis Show on TuneIn for Monday.
Podcasts. By tomorrow, we will be sending you details on how to hear our show on demand. Our show will be available for free on our stream for 24 hours every day, and then the shows will be archived on a special premium library for subscribers. The archiving and categorizing of our previously-streamed shows, as well as the bandwidth to store and stream the shows on demand, has a cost to us, and so we will be charging for access to our library to pay that cost. Subscribers will receive access to most previously-streamed shows, a 128k live CD-audio quality stream to listen on your PC or Mac, say, at work or at home, special content that won't appear on the regular show, etc, and soon, we plan a special app just for subscribers. Remember, the show is available for free when it's live and it will be repeated for free on our stream until the next live show, so if you can't or don't want to pay to listen, you don't have to. But if listening on demand is important to you, it will be available and, because you're on our list. you will be getting details in our very next newsletter coming within the next 24 hours.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
7 of the most misandric bills from across the country
1. The Spilled Semen Amendment Oklahoma state senator Constance Johnson introduced an amendment to that state’s Personhood bill, SB 1433, that would essentially outlaw masturbation for men. Johnson’s amendment proposed that the legislation include a provision that men ejaculating anywhere outside a woman’s vagina be considered “an action against an unborn child.”
Johnson wrote about the amendment in the Guardian:
My action to amend the so-called “Personhood” bill – SB 1433, introduced by Senator Brian Crain (Republican, Tulsa) – represents the culmination of my and many other Oklahomans’ frustration regarding the ridiculousness of our reproductive policy initiatives in Oklahoma. I have received overwhelmingly positive responses from men and women in Oklahoma – and worldwide. The Personhood bill would potentially allow governmental intrusion into families’ personal lives by policing what happens to a woman’s eggs without any similar thought to what happens to a man’s sperm.
2. The Viagra Amendment
Illinois state Rep. Kelly Cassidy proposed an amendment to a bill including a provision for mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds that would require men trying to get a Viagra prescription to watch a graphic video about the dangers of the drug beforehand.
Cassidy told Huffington Post, “If they’re serious about us not being about to make our own health care decisions, then I’m just as serious about them not being able to make theirs.”
The amendment was attached to the “Ultrasound Opportunity Act,” Illinois HB4085, which is still working its way through the Illinois legislature.
3. The Viagra Bill: Ohio SB 307
The best-known protest bill in the works is that of Nina Turner, an Ohio state senator. Turner has introduced a bill that would require men to, among other things, get an affidavit from a sexual partner affirming their impotency before they could get a prescription for Viagra. Men trying to get Viagra would also have to see a sex therapist and undergo a cardiac stress test.
And it doesn’t end there. After being prescribed the drug, men would have to have a cardiac stress test every 90 days to affirm their fitness for sexual activity, plus do three sessions of outpatient counseling.
Turner got quite a bit of attention for the bill, including an appearance on MSNBC. It was intended to protest the Ohio “heartbeat bill” which would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. It’s unlikely to pass.
I discussed this here. Stacey Newman's photo in this post too.
4. Missouri HB1853: The Vasectomy Bill
This bill, introduced by Missouri State Rep. Stacey Newman, would stop men from getting vasectomies unless the procedure would prevent serious injury or death.
The bill’s language is strong: “A vasectomy shall only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man. No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the man or that the man will purposefully engage in conduct which he intends to result in his death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”
Newman said in a statement, “If we are going to seriously restrict access to birth control used by over 98 percent of Missouri women and widely used since 1960, then it’s only fair we legislate men’s access as well.” Her bill was in response to the Missouri House’s attempt to block the Obama administration’s contraception mandate.
5. The Rectal Exam Amendment
Virginia state senator Janet Howell proposed an amendment to the state’s anti-abortion bill (recently signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell but sans transvaginal ultrasound mandate) that would require men to undergo a rectal exam and cardiac stress test before being treated for erectile dysfunction.
The amendment didn’t pass, but came close — it was narrowly defeated by a vote of 21 to 19. Six of the seven women in the Virginia State Senate voted in favor of the amendment.
6. Personhood Rights For Sperm
The Wilmington, Delaware City Council passed a resolution calling on the Delaware legislature to classify sperm as people. The logic: if personhood rights can be extended to fertilized eggs, then they should also be extended to sperm. The resolution calls them “egg people” and “sperm people.”
If the resolution were to be turned into law, men would be legally barred from harming their sperm in any way. The councilwoman who introduced the resolution, Loretta Walsh, described it as tongue-in-cheek — which didn’t stop Personhood USA from issuing a strongly-worded statement.
“This kind of political showboating has no place in government, at any level,” said Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason in the statement.
7. The Pennsylvania Erectile Dysfunction Bill
Unlike the other protest bills, this one is the work of a man. Pennsylvania state senator Larry Farnese plans to introduce legislation this week that would, like Turner’s, force men to undergo a battery of tests before being treated for erectile dysfunction. Under the legislation, men would have to watch a video on the side effects of Viagra, get a prostate exam, and receive cardiac stress tests and sex therapy.
The anti-abortion bill in the Pennsylvania legislature right now is thought to be one of the most restrictive in the country. Like Virginia’s, it would require women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion. Farnese released a statement saying “I’m submitting legislation that will require men to undergo a few similarly evasive [sic] tests in order to show that this effort is ridiculous and that we should be protecting and expanding, not watering down, health services for women.”
Source:click here
Men have created laws that benefited women and now that women have legislative capability what are they doing? Hurting men. It seems that women have forgotten what male legislators did for them by passing laws that benefited them. I guess they don't care as long as they are hurting men.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
VAWA goes before the Senate
The following is from SAVE:
In the last week, Senator Leahy (D-VT) gathered enough co-sponsors to avoid a filibuster, and the Senate is expected to vote on the Violence Against Women Act (S.1925) very soon.
This means time is running short to take action.
Let's make sure that every senator knows that without accountability, accreditation and equal protection, VAWA is a flawed bill. Let's make sure they know that we want them to vote NO.
Find your senators' phone numbers here: click here.
Or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, where an operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
The vote could be this week, so please call right now.
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
I guess it's going down to the wire. If we can kill this in the Senate let's do it. Let's send those emails or make those calls however you want to do it. Let's hold them accountable.
In the last week, Senator Leahy (D-VT) gathered enough co-sponsors to avoid a filibuster, and the Senate is expected to vote on the Violence Against Women Act (S.1925) very soon.
This means time is running short to take action.
Let's make sure that every senator knows that without accountability, accreditation and equal protection, VAWA is a flawed bill. Let's make sure they know that we want them to vote NO.
Find your senators' phone numbers here: click here.
Or call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, where an operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
The vote could be this week, so please call right now.
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
I guess it's going down to the wire. If we can kill this in the Senate let's do it. Let's send those emails or make those calls however you want to do it. Let's hold them accountable.
Monday, March 26, 2012
More on the SPLC
You might recall how the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) put on its list various men's rights groups that they listed as "hate groups" click here. Well now there are other groups that SPLC labeled as "hate groups" yet they aren't. Here is a list of these so-called "hate groups" (no,they are not MRA's):
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
The thing is that Radfemhub is collecting donations for the SPLC. The irony is that Radfemhub is an actual hate group,in fact they are the ones whose posts were in the agent orange files. So why is SPLC working with Radfemhub? Birds of a feather flock together,even if they are birds of hate.
The thing is that Radfemhub is collecting donations for the SPLC. The irony is that Radfemhub is an actual hate group,in fact they are the ones whose posts were in the agent orange files. So why is SPLC working with Radfemhub? Birds of a feather flock together,even if they are birds of hate.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Brother Tom is back
From an email concerning Tom Leykis:
Shock Jock Tom Leykis Returns After Three Year Absence…But Not to Radio
Longtime LA radio shock jock Tom Leykis returns Monday, April 2nd at 3 PM Pacific time, uncut and uncensored, with a daily show produced specifically for internet distribution at http://www.blowmeuptom.com/.
Longtime LA radio shock jock Tom Leykis takes his show to the internet beginning on April 2nd. Blow me up Tom
Imagine having three years to learn as much as you can about new ways of doing things, about what is possible, as well as having time to relax and refresh.
Burbank, CA (PRWEB) March 23, 2012
After 21 years of outraging Southern California drive time radio listeners, Tom Leykis left the air in February of 2009. And, as so often happens in the radio business, listeners were left wondering why he was gone and where he went.
The answers will be found when Leykis returns for a new daily show after an amazing 37 months off the air when The Tom Leykis Show on April 2nd at 3 PM Pacific time. And this time, he’s taking no chances of being made invisible again by the brick-and-mortar terrestrial radio industry because the show will be heard live and on 24/7 streamed replays athttp://www.blowmeuptom.com/ as well as through media players such as the TuneIn application for Android phones and iPhones, but not on radio.
Leykis, who for 12 years was one of LA’s top-rated afternoon radio personalities on LA’s former KLSX 97.1 FM (and who for eight years was the afternoon counterpart to Howard Stern’s legendary morning show), suddenly left the air when the station’s owner, CBS Radio, decided for economic reasons to change the station’s format to top-40.
So why didn’t Leykis, who had never in his career been out of work for more than a few months, simply go to another radio station and pick up where he left off? It was because he had signed a five-year guaranteed contract to provide his daily show and any potential streams or podcasts exclusively to CBS. The result was that, when KLSX changed format, Leykis was paid his full salary to do absolutely nothing from 2009 until March 31st 2012, which is one week from Saturday.
"After taking a few months off, I took a good hard look at the radio business that I’ve loved since I was a kid and realized that it’s now in a world of hurt. Deregulation of the broadcasting business allowed companies that once owned a dozen radio stations to, within about a decade, own hundreds of stations,” Leykis says.
“And they didn’t buy those stations with money stashed in a mattress. The companies borrowed money and, in many cases, are in economic situations that mirror those of the underwater homeowners we read so much about.”
So Leykis, as he has so many times in his career, decided to reinvent himself as an entrepreneur, creating his internet audio content company The New Normal New Normal Network in 2010.
Leykis says that, rather than feeling like punishment, having three years off with full pay has been “liberating.”
“Imagine having three years to learn as much as you can about new ways of doing things, about what is possible, as well as having time to relax and refresh,” he says.
“What I found,” says Leykis, “was that, unlike radio, we start with a clean balance sheet and that we can produce the same or better content without real estate, without big, expensive and outdated equipment such as transmitters and satellite dishes, and without government regulation. We can be heard anywhere in the world rather than in select radio markets. We can produce technically better-sounding audio content more cheaply and we don’t have limitations as to content or what kinds or advertising we can accept. And we don’t have to answer to the FCC.”
Tom Leykis (Twitter: @TomLeykis) sees another benefit too. “Because we don’t start with a mountain of debt, beholden to private equity groups or hedge funds, we can sell advertising at a far more reasonable price than a local radio station,” he says.
“We are offering special rates to small and medium sized businesses that feel that they’ve been shut out from radio advertising over recent years by stations who need to keep pushing ad rates higher just to pay their Wall Street debt service,” Leykis says. The New Normal has set up a special phone number for businesses who are looking for an alternative to radio advertising: (818) 52-RADIO (527-2346).
And what about the recent controversies involving Rush Limbaugh or KFI Radio’s John & Ken Show? “Those are good examples of the influence of large conglomerate ownership of the broadcasting industry,” says Leykis. “Whether you agree with what those hosts said or not, what made talk radio great for all those years was the ability to be outrageous and to not have to apologize for it. That’s another great reason for moving my business to the internet.”
Is he excited to be returning to doing a daily call-in show? “Absolutely,” he says, “but this time it’s as much about taking pride of ownership as it is about doing an outrageous show.”
Welcome back,brother Tom we have missed you and what is on radio is not the same. It's good to see a brother MRA back at his post getting the message out. Looking forward to April 2.
Shock Jock Tom Leykis Returns After Three Year Absence…But Not to Radio
Longtime LA radio shock jock Tom Leykis returns Monday, April 2nd at 3 PM Pacific time, uncut and uncensored, with a daily show produced specifically for internet distribution at http://www.blowmeuptom.com/.
Longtime LA radio shock jock Tom Leykis takes his show to the internet beginning on April 2nd. Blow me up Tom
Imagine having three years to learn as much as you can about new ways of doing things, about what is possible, as well as having time to relax and refresh.
Burbank, CA (PRWEB) March 23, 2012
After 21 years of outraging Southern California drive time radio listeners, Tom Leykis left the air in February of 2009. And, as so often happens in the radio business, listeners were left wondering why he was gone and where he went.
The answers will be found when Leykis returns for a new daily show after an amazing 37 months off the air when The Tom Leykis Show on April 2nd at 3 PM Pacific time. And this time, he’s taking no chances of being made invisible again by the brick-and-mortar terrestrial radio industry because the show will be heard live and on 24/7 streamed replays athttp://www.blowmeuptom.com/ as well as through media players such as the TuneIn application for Android phones and iPhones, but not on radio.
Leykis, who for 12 years was one of LA’s top-rated afternoon radio personalities on LA’s former KLSX 97.1 FM (and who for eight years was the afternoon counterpart to Howard Stern’s legendary morning show), suddenly left the air when the station’s owner, CBS Radio, decided for economic reasons to change the station’s format to top-40.
So why didn’t Leykis, who had never in his career been out of work for more than a few months, simply go to another radio station and pick up where he left off? It was because he had signed a five-year guaranteed contract to provide his daily show and any potential streams or podcasts exclusively to CBS. The result was that, when KLSX changed format, Leykis was paid his full salary to do absolutely nothing from 2009 until March 31st 2012, which is one week from Saturday.
"After taking a few months off, I took a good hard look at the radio business that I’ve loved since I was a kid and realized that it’s now in a world of hurt. Deregulation of the broadcasting business allowed companies that once owned a dozen radio stations to, within about a decade, own hundreds of stations,” Leykis says.
“And they didn’t buy those stations with money stashed in a mattress. The companies borrowed money and, in many cases, are in economic situations that mirror those of the underwater homeowners we read so much about.”
So Leykis, as he has so many times in his career, decided to reinvent himself as an entrepreneur, creating his internet audio content company The New Normal New Normal Network in 2010.
Leykis says that, rather than feeling like punishment, having three years off with full pay has been “liberating.”
“Imagine having three years to learn as much as you can about new ways of doing things, about what is possible, as well as having time to relax and refresh,” he says.
“What I found,” says Leykis, “was that, unlike radio, we start with a clean balance sheet and that we can produce the same or better content without real estate, without big, expensive and outdated equipment such as transmitters and satellite dishes, and without government regulation. We can be heard anywhere in the world rather than in select radio markets. We can produce technically better-sounding audio content more cheaply and we don’t have limitations as to content or what kinds or advertising we can accept. And we don’t have to answer to the FCC.”
Tom Leykis (Twitter: @TomLeykis) sees another benefit too. “Because we don’t start with a mountain of debt, beholden to private equity groups or hedge funds, we can sell advertising at a far more reasonable price than a local radio station,” he says.
“We are offering special rates to small and medium sized businesses that feel that they’ve been shut out from radio advertising over recent years by stations who need to keep pushing ad rates higher just to pay their Wall Street debt service,” Leykis says. The New Normal has set up a special phone number for businesses who are looking for an alternative to radio advertising: (818) 52-RADIO (527-2346).
And what about the recent controversies involving Rush Limbaugh or KFI Radio’s John & Ken Show? “Those are good examples of the influence of large conglomerate ownership of the broadcasting industry,” says Leykis. “Whether you agree with what those hosts said or not, what made talk radio great for all those years was the ability to be outrageous and to not have to apologize for it. That’s another great reason for moving my business to the internet.”
Is he excited to be returning to doing a daily call-in show? “Absolutely,” he says, “but this time it’s as much about taking pride of ownership as it is about doing an outrageous show.”
Welcome back,brother Tom we have missed you and what is on radio is not the same. It's good to see a brother MRA back at his post getting the message out. Looking forward to April 2.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Pro-MRA music video
Check this video out. It fucking rocks. Finally a pro-MRA video that tells it like it is. Thank you Jade Michael for this video. May it be played throughout the MRM community.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Mainstream media takes notice of VAWA status
TUESDAY, MAR 20, 2012 4:45 AM PACIFIC
DAYLIGHT TIME The coming fight over violence against women
Republicans are determined to demagogue the Violence Against Women Act.
They're wrong on the politics and the facts
BY IRIN CARMON
Reauthorizing the once-bipartisan Violence Against Women Act used to be a matter of Senate routine, but it has now gone the way of debt-ceiling negotiations — into the trenches of partisan warfare. Reading recent reports of the coming Capitol Hill showdown on the VAWA, you would either conclude that Republicans are broadening their assault on women, or Democrats have politicized the bill with various poison pills involving LGBT rights, immigration and Native American communities. What gets lost in both explanations is the merits of the actual changes.
While VAWA has not yet faced a full Senate vote, all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in February against reauthorization. Democrats are clearly trying to use this to capitalize on the recent interest in Republican misogyny, which, legislatively speaking, has become mainstreamed in the party. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asserted on the Senate floor last week that “This is one more step in the removal of rights for women.” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shot back Thursday, citing a Politico article to suggest Sen. Chuck Schumer “is sitting up at night trying to figure out a way to create an issue where there isn’t one … to help Democrats get reelected.”
The Democrats’ latest land mine, according to McConnell and his caucus, is to have quietly made VAWA a vehicle for radical causes. Sen. Jeff Sessions complained, “You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Chuck Grassley has accused Democrats of adding specialized provisions about same-sex partner violence, immigration and Native American jurisdictional issues that are “not consensus items,” to make Republicans look pro-domestic violence.
See if you can make sense of the following Grassley condemnation: “The substitute creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing focus on helping victims, period … If every group is a priority, no group is a priority.” Apparently, victims can’t come from underserved populations – or be particularly vulnerable because of it.
Then there is the faction of the Republican base that has always opposed VAWA, well before the recent measures. It made its opinions known in a Feb. 2 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by groups including the Family Research Council, claiming VAWA “destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.” One of the signatories to the letter, Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, recently elaborated, saying VAWA “offers women both a ‘tactical advantage’ and a ‘powerful weapon’ when they want to ‘get back’ at a man, have regrets the next morning, or want out of a marriage for any reason at all.” (It’s not clear where any of these scare quotes come from.)
Notably, they didn’t mention the LGBT, immigration or Native American-specific provisions, though the letter did warn darkly that the reauthorization would “add expensive new programs, such as one that would serve to ‘re-educate’ school children into domestic violence ideology.”
It helps then, amid the uproar, to remember what it is, exactly, that VAWA does, and understand how its supporters have proposed to modify it. Before its passage in 1994, not all states had stalking laws, and many had weaker laws on sex crimes, both of which got an indirect push from the federal law. So did funding to help training and collaboration between law enforcement, shelters, and medical professionals. “Before, it felt like each person, each department was [dealing with victims] in a vacuum and not talking to one another,” says Sue Else, president of the U.S. National Network to End Domestic Violence.
Since its passage, the Network reports a 51 percent increase in reporting by women and 37 percent increase in reporting by men, who, despite the act’s title, are also covered under it. At the same time, the number of individuals killed by intimate partners has decreased, by 34 percent for women and by 57 percent for men. (The more dramatic figure for men may be due to a smaller overall figure being more sensitive to percentage shifts; Else also suggested in an interview that women now have more recourse before reaching a desperate situation.) An increase in protection orders, says Else, has lowered the number of instances of domestic violence, in the process reducing law enforcement and hospital costs.
The new VAWA is not as radically different from earlier versions as Republicans suggest. Longtime advocates of the law argue that the expansions for these groups are incremental. “It’s not so much novel as it is an evolution,” says Lisalyn R. Jacobs, the vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, who has worked on VAWA since just after President Clinton signed it in 1994. “Over the course of 18 years, obviously we’ve learned a lot.” Previous versions of VAWA already included some separate provisions for Native women. Groups that work with LGBT populations already get VAWA funds in many cases. And the U.S. already issues 10,000 U visas annually for the abused immigrant spouses of citizens. The new version of VAWA would add 5,000 visas a year, “a smaller increase than has been requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to a memo from sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy’s office.
Advocates sound exasperated that their years of effort have been ensnared in political maneuvering. Take the provisions about Native American women, who suffer domestic violence at a far higher rate than the general population, and who have been separately addressed in VAWA since its first version. “[Republicans] would leave you with the impression that this VAWA is unique in its focus on the particular needs of Native women,” says Jacobs. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” The new bill simply eliminates the hurdle for Native women married to non-Native men, as 51 percent of Native women are, and living on reservations that requires them to report abuse to non-Native law enforcement. Instead, it gives some authority to tribal authorities in responding to a domestic violence report.
“With particular respect to the Native issues,” says Jacobs, “we did not have a clue that [Grassley] had any issue about that until we got to the markup last month. Any number of people had met with his staff on numerous occasions” without hearing about any objections.
As for the immigration issue, Grassley said recently that “the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to illegal immigrant visas.” Under the assumption that women pretend to be abused rather than be deported, Grassley tried unsuccessfully to force an amendment that would have required that the crime be reported within 60 days and that it be under active investigation, making it significantly more difficult to qualify.
But the visas already long made possible by VAWA are fairly narrow in scope: The abused immigrant spouse, child or parent has to have lost status due to domestic violence in a marriage to a U.S. citizen, and therefore be eligible to petition directly to the Department of Homeland Security to qualify for a new visa. The additional 5,000 visas will help clear the backlog that has built up due to bureaucratic red tape.
These U visas, initially created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, also aid in law enforcement purposes. As Jacobs puts it, “The green card can become a weapon of abuse; for example, ‘Go sell drugs for me or I’ll withdraw your petition.’”
Finally, there’s the assumption that there is some sort of vast expansion of resources or recognition to LGBT communities. In fact, VAWA grants administered by the states have gone to groups that have served LGBT communities for years; separately, in 2010, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying that criminal provisions in VAWA apply regardless of gender or sexuality. What’s new in the most recent VAWA is the anti-discrimination language, saying that grantees can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Like the new measures for immigrant and Native American women, the new language doesn’t reinvent the wheel. Says Jacobs, “While we knew that same-sex relationships were not the favorite things of lots of people on Capitol Hill, we didn’t think we were breaking a lot of new ground.”
While Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were recalcitrant, the current bill still has Republican co-sponsors and supporters, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who publicly recanted her party-line vote on contraception and who joined the Senate women on the floor in support of VAWA. According to the New York Times, she warned her party in a closed-door meeting that if it picked this battle, it would cede the Democrats’ war on women line. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee seems to hope it can pull an “I know you are but what am I” on the Democrats with women. It recently released a video claiming it was Obama who was attacking women, mostly because he took money from Bill Maher. Best of luck with that one.
Source:click here
I want to address two things:
Advocates sound exasperated that their years of effort have been ensnared in political maneuvering.
I'll bet they are. This is the last thing they wanted,which was for someone to stand up to them the bullies they are. What used to get approved in 6 minutes has now gone on for 6 months and it still isn't settled yet.
“It’s not so much novel as it is an evolution,” says Lisalyn R. Jacobs, the vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, who has worked on VAWA since just after President Clinton signed it in 1994. “Over the course of 18 years, obviously we’ve learned a lot.”
Lisalyn R. Jacobs. Where have we heard that name before? Oh yeah:here
It looks like this fight is heating up. Speaking of VAWA join the debate on VAWA in the previous post. If you are anti-VAWA then by all means join in.
DAYLIGHT TIME The coming fight over violence against women
Republicans are determined to demagogue the Violence Against Women Act.
They're wrong on the politics and the facts
BY IRIN CARMON
Reauthorizing the once-bipartisan Violence Against Women Act used to be a matter of Senate routine, but it has now gone the way of debt-ceiling negotiations — into the trenches of partisan warfare. Reading recent reports of the coming Capitol Hill showdown on the VAWA, you would either conclude that Republicans are broadening their assault on women, or Democrats have politicized the bill with various poison pills involving LGBT rights, immigration and Native American communities. What gets lost in both explanations is the merits of the actual changes.
While VAWA has not yet faced a full Senate vote, all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in February against reauthorization. Democrats are clearly trying to use this to capitalize on the recent interest in Republican misogyny, which, legislatively speaking, has become mainstreamed in the party. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asserted on the Senate floor last week that “This is one more step in the removal of rights for women.” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shot back Thursday, citing a Politico article to suggest Sen. Chuck Schumer “is sitting up at night trying to figure out a way to create an issue where there isn’t one … to help Democrats get reelected.”
The Democrats’ latest land mine, according to McConnell and his caucus, is to have quietly made VAWA a vehicle for radical causes. Sen. Jeff Sessions complained, “You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Chuck Grassley has accused Democrats of adding specialized provisions about same-sex partner violence, immigration and Native American jurisdictional issues that are “not consensus items,” to make Republicans look pro-domestic violence.
See if you can make sense of the following Grassley condemnation: “The substitute creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing focus on helping victims, period … If every group is a priority, no group is a priority.” Apparently, victims can’t come from underserved populations – or be particularly vulnerable because of it.
Then there is the faction of the Republican base that has always opposed VAWA, well before the recent measures. It made its opinions known in a Feb. 2 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee signed by groups including the Family Research Council, claiming VAWA “destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.” One of the signatories to the letter, Janice Shaw Crouse, senior fellow of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, recently elaborated, saying VAWA “offers women both a ‘tactical advantage’ and a ‘powerful weapon’ when they want to ‘get back’ at a man, have regrets the next morning, or want out of a marriage for any reason at all.” (It’s not clear where any of these scare quotes come from.)
Notably, they didn’t mention the LGBT, immigration or Native American-specific provisions, though the letter did warn darkly that the reauthorization would “add expensive new programs, such as one that would serve to ‘re-educate’ school children into domestic violence ideology.”
It helps then, amid the uproar, to remember what it is, exactly, that VAWA does, and understand how its supporters have proposed to modify it. Before its passage in 1994, not all states had stalking laws, and many had weaker laws on sex crimes, both of which got an indirect push from the federal law. So did funding to help training and collaboration between law enforcement, shelters, and medical professionals. “Before, it felt like each person, each department was [dealing with victims] in a vacuum and not talking to one another,” says Sue Else, president of the U.S. National Network to End Domestic Violence.
Since its passage, the Network reports a 51 percent increase in reporting by women and 37 percent increase in reporting by men, who, despite the act’s title, are also covered under it. At the same time, the number of individuals killed by intimate partners has decreased, by 34 percent for women and by 57 percent for men. (The more dramatic figure for men may be due to a smaller overall figure being more sensitive to percentage shifts; Else also suggested in an interview that women now have more recourse before reaching a desperate situation.) An increase in protection orders, says Else, has lowered the number of instances of domestic violence, in the process reducing law enforcement and hospital costs.
The new VAWA is not as radically different from earlier versions as Republicans suggest. Longtime advocates of the law argue that the expansions for these groups are incremental. “It’s not so much novel as it is an evolution,” says Lisalyn R. Jacobs, the vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, who has worked on VAWA since just after President Clinton signed it in 1994. “Over the course of 18 years, obviously we’ve learned a lot.” Previous versions of VAWA already included some separate provisions for Native women. Groups that work with LGBT populations already get VAWA funds in many cases. And the U.S. already issues 10,000 U visas annually for the abused immigrant spouses of citizens. The new version of VAWA would add 5,000 visas a year, “a smaller increase than has been requested by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” according to a memo from sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy’s office.
Advocates sound exasperated that their years of effort have been ensnared in political maneuvering. Take the provisions about Native American women, who suffer domestic violence at a far higher rate than the general population, and who have been separately addressed in VAWA since its first version. “[Republicans] would leave you with the impression that this VAWA is unique in its focus on the particular needs of Native women,” says Jacobs. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” The new bill simply eliminates the hurdle for Native women married to non-Native men, as 51 percent of Native women are, and living on reservations that requires them to report abuse to non-Native law enforcement. Instead, it gives some authority to tribal authorities in responding to a domestic violence report.
“With particular respect to the Native issues,” says Jacobs, “we did not have a clue that [Grassley] had any issue about that until we got to the markup last month. Any number of people had met with his staff on numerous occasions” without hearing about any objections.
As for the immigration issue, Grassley said recently that “the questions had to do with the additions that have been made to this bill related to illegal immigrant visas.” Under the assumption that women pretend to be abused rather than be deported, Grassley tried unsuccessfully to force an amendment that would have required that the crime be reported within 60 days and that it be under active investigation, making it significantly more difficult to qualify.
But the visas already long made possible by VAWA are fairly narrow in scope: The abused immigrant spouse, child or parent has to have lost status due to domestic violence in a marriage to a U.S. citizen, and therefore be eligible to petition directly to the Department of Homeland Security to qualify for a new visa. The additional 5,000 visas will help clear the backlog that has built up due to bureaucratic red tape.
These U visas, initially created by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, also aid in law enforcement purposes. As Jacobs puts it, “The green card can become a weapon of abuse; for example, ‘Go sell drugs for me or I’ll withdraw your petition.’”
Finally, there’s the assumption that there is some sort of vast expansion of resources or recognition to LGBT communities. In fact, VAWA grants administered by the states have gone to groups that have served LGBT communities for years; separately, in 2010, the Justice Department issued a memo clarifying that criminal provisions in VAWA apply regardless of gender or sexuality. What’s new in the most recent VAWA is the anti-discrimination language, saying that grantees can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Like the new measures for immigrant and Native American women, the new language doesn’t reinvent the wheel. Says Jacobs, “While we knew that same-sex relationships were not the favorite things of lots of people on Capitol Hill, we didn’t think we were breaking a lot of new ground.”
While Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee were recalcitrant, the current bill still has Republican co-sponsors and supporters, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who publicly recanted her party-line vote on contraception and who joined the Senate women on the floor in support of VAWA. According to the New York Times, she warned her party in a closed-door meeting that if it picked this battle, it would cede the Democrats’ war on women line. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee seems to hope it can pull an “I know you are but what am I” on the Democrats with women. It recently released a video claiming it was Obama who was attacking women, mostly because he took money from Bill Maher. Best of luck with that one.
Source:click here
I want to address two things:
Advocates sound exasperated that their years of effort have been ensnared in political maneuvering.
I'll bet they are. This is the last thing they wanted,which was for someone to stand up to them the bullies they are. What used to get approved in 6 minutes has now gone on for 6 months and it still isn't settled yet.
“It’s not so much novel as it is an evolution,” says Lisalyn R. Jacobs, the vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, who has worked on VAWA since just after President Clinton signed it in 1994. “Over the course of 18 years, obviously we’ve learned a lot.”
Lisalyn R. Jacobs. Where have we heard that name before? Oh yeah:here
It looks like this fight is heating up. Speaking of VAWA join the debate on VAWA in the previous post. If you are anti-VAWA then by all means join in.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
VAWA debate at U.S. News and World Report
U.S. News & World Report has taken note of the controversy around the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act - VAWA - (s.1925), making it the focus of Debate Club. Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. They ask: Should the Violence Against Women Act Be Reauthorized? click here
As of this writing, the entry in first place is: "NO: Violence Against Women Act Is a Totalitarian Violation of Democracy" by Laura Wood.click here In second place is "NO: The Violence Against Women Act Should Outrage Decent People" by Janice Shaw Crouse.click here Following that are a few entries supporting the reauthorization.
You could read these two thoughtful articles explaining why Senator Leahy's VAWA misses the mark, or you could read all of the entries, pro and against VAWA. We encourage that.
But we also understand how valuable your time is. So if you only have a moment and you want to make a difference, I'll explain how you can do that.
Go to the debate here: click here. Scroll down until you see these two 'NO' opinions:
Click on the UP buttons next to Laura's and Janice's entries. That's it!
If you have another moment, you could click the down buttons next to all of the 'yes' entries.
Thank you for your continued dedication, and for your patience. I believe we are starting to see the results of our slow and steady efforts. Isn't it just wonderful?
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
If you have time to write an opinion that is great too in fact it is preferred but if don't then support our friends and undermining our enemies is good too. You do that by upvoting or downvoting. There are politicians weighing in too and they are reading this site so if you want to weigh in this is a great reason to do so.
As of this writing, the entry in first place is: "NO: Violence Against Women Act Is a Totalitarian Violation of Democracy" by Laura Wood.click here In second place is "NO: The Violence Against Women Act Should Outrage Decent People" by Janice Shaw Crouse.click here Following that are a few entries supporting the reauthorization.
You could read these two thoughtful articles explaining why Senator Leahy's VAWA misses the mark, or you could read all of the entries, pro and against VAWA. We encourage that.
But we also understand how valuable your time is. So if you only have a moment and you want to make a difference, I'll explain how you can do that.
Go to the debate here: click here. Scroll down until you see these two 'NO' opinions:
Click on the UP buttons next to Laura's and Janice's entries. That's it!
If you have another moment, you could click the down buttons next to all of the 'yes' entries.
Thank you for your continued dedication, and for your patience. I believe we are starting to see the results of our slow and steady efforts. Isn't it just wonderful?
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
If you have time to write an opinion that is great too in fact it is preferred but if don't then support our friends and undermining our enemies is good too. You do that by upvoting or downvoting. There are politicians weighing in too and they are reading this site so if you want to weigh in this is a great reason to do so.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
ISP's to help RIAA to censor the net
From Demand Progress:
They're selling us out. Just weeks after Internet users from across the globe came together to to beat SOPA, the major ISPs are cutting a deal with Big Content to restrict web access for users who are accused of piracy.
It'll do much of the dirty work we were able to prevent when we took down SOPA, this time by restricting certain Americans' access to the WHOLE Internet.
The details are fuzzy, but the head of the Recording Industry Association of America's bragged this week that ISPs will start policing copyright by July of this year.
Will you click here to sign our open letter to the ISPs? Demand that they respect their customers and back down now.
Here's RT's take on the proposal:
"Some of the biggest Internet service providers in America plan to adopt policies that will punish customers for copyright infringement, and one of the top trade groups in the music biz announced this week that it could begin as soon as this summer....
"RIAA CEO Cary Sherman was one of the guest speakers among a New York panel this week and he confirmed that, at this rate, some of the most powerful Internet providers in America should have their new policies on the books by July 12, 2012."
The ISPs are poised to start treating their customers like criminals, restricting their access to the Internet.
And they're cutting us off at the knees just ast we've begun to force a new conversation about Internet freedom and copyright law.
Please sign on to our open letter demanding they back down -- just click here.
Thanks!
Demand Progress
To sign the petition:click here
If the ISP's liquidate what their customers want then they'll lose customers thus liquidating their business. Not a very smart move but considering the RIAA will be sitting pretty if that happens or is that the RIAA's plan all along. If ISP's are stupid enough to go along with this plan they are out of business. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
They're selling us out. Just weeks after Internet users from across the globe came together to to beat SOPA, the major ISPs are cutting a deal with Big Content to restrict web access for users who are accused of piracy.
It'll do much of the dirty work we were able to prevent when we took down SOPA, this time by restricting certain Americans' access to the WHOLE Internet.
The details are fuzzy, but the head of the Recording Industry Association of America's bragged this week that ISPs will start policing copyright by July of this year.
Will you click here to sign our open letter to the ISPs? Demand that they respect their customers and back down now.
Here's RT's take on the proposal:
"Some of the biggest Internet service providers in America plan to adopt policies that will punish customers for copyright infringement, and one of the top trade groups in the music biz announced this week that it could begin as soon as this summer....
"RIAA CEO Cary Sherman was one of the guest speakers among a New York panel this week and he confirmed that, at this rate, some of the most powerful Internet providers in America should have their new policies on the books by July 12, 2012."
The ISPs are poised to start treating their customers like criminals, restricting their access to the Internet.
And they're cutting us off at the knees just ast we've begun to force a new conversation about Internet freedom and copyright law.
Please sign on to our open letter demanding they back down -- just click here.
Thanks!
Demand Progress
To sign the petition:click here
If the ISP's liquidate what their customers want then they'll lose customers thus liquidating their business. Not a very smart move but considering the RIAA will be sitting pretty if that happens or is that the RIAA's plan all along. If ISP's are stupid enough to go along with this plan they are out of business. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Syrian first lady on the suffering of her people.
From our brother group The Spearhead:
Feminist Syrian First Lady: “I am the real dictator”
by W.F. PRICE on MARCH 19, 2012
As thousands cower under the howling rockets and bursting shells unleashed by the Syrian regime, opposition leaders have released thousands of emails exchanged between the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma, a British-born and educated beauty who has long been held to be a shining example of modern womanhood, featured many times in fashion magazines and the like.
Some of the emails show Asma making jokes at the expense of the people of Homs, who have been under siege and sustained attack for some time. Several Western journalists have been killed while covering the assault, which current reports describe as brutal and indiscriminate. In another email, Asma claims to be the real power behind the regime, saying that Bashar al-Assad has no choice but to listen to her. Evidently, her advice has not been merciful.
Not long before the Arab Spring revolts that erupted last year, the first ladies of the Arab world were regularly praised as trail-blazing feminists who commanded great influence and power. Of 22 Arab states, 15 first ladies signed up for a feminist organization called the Arab Women Organization. In 2009, Helen Smith of The Guardian described the group as “founded with the express purpose of empowering women…” and lavishes praise on its members.
The list of member states is eye-opening: Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Oman, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Yemen are all members. All but a couple of these states have faced unrest over the last year, and nearly half open civil war or regime change.
One of the things feminists often claim is that if women ran the world, there would be no more war, conflict, hunger, etc. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this to be ridiculous; female heads of state have been every bit as warmongering as their male counterparts, if not more so. From Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I to Empress Dowager Cixi, female leaders have been associated with bloodshed and chaos. Now, if we are to take her word for it, we have Asma Assad to add to the list.
One thing Westerners tend not to understand about the Arab world is that although the people themselves tend to be deeply conservative and traditional, their elites and leaders are far less so. This is beginning to become more the case in the US, but the divide is far more stark in places such as Egypt and Syria. Many of the leaders – and their wives – were educated in the liberal Western tradition when anti-traditionalism was at its peak, while opposition leaders are more likely to have gone to school in madrassas to study classical Arabic and the Koran. The Arab people see these first ladies traveling around in limousines bedecked with priceless jewels and wearing the latest fashions while mouthing platitudes about women’s rights and “progress.” In the meanwhile, young Arab men can’t find work and many of their would-be wives are stuck at home with little chance of starting a family of their own.
We aren’t there yet, but we’re getting closer by the day. If our feminists can’t see their role in creating the kind of social decay that eventually leads to regime change, it’s only because it isn’t in their nature to concern themselves with these matters. As for the Arab elites who let their wives rule, we have only to read the newspaper to see what eventually happens to men who grow soft and seek counsel in the bedchamber.
This must be some of that feminine nurturing I keep hearing about. How women are sympathetic and compassionate to the cries of their people and rush in to save them. According to a lot of Lifetime movies this is the case. These positive traits remind me of bigfoot: widely talked about but rarely seen in actuality. I'm sure a lot of these women have the hearts of children-in jars on their desks.
by W.F. PRICE on MARCH 19, 2012
As thousands cower under the howling rockets and bursting shells unleashed by the Syrian regime, opposition leaders have released thousands of emails exchanged between the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma, a British-born and educated beauty who has long been held to be a shining example of modern womanhood, featured many times in fashion magazines and the like.
Some of the emails show Asma making jokes at the expense of the people of Homs, who have been under siege and sustained attack for some time. Several Western journalists have been killed while covering the assault, which current reports describe as brutal and indiscriminate. In another email, Asma claims to be the real power behind the regime, saying that Bashar al-Assad has no choice but to listen to her. Evidently, her advice has not been merciful.
Not long before the Arab Spring revolts that erupted last year, the first ladies of the Arab world were regularly praised as trail-blazing feminists who commanded great influence and power. Of 22 Arab states, 15 first ladies signed up for a feminist organization called the Arab Women Organization. In 2009, Helen Smith of The Guardian described the group as “founded with the express purpose of empowering women…” and lavishes praise on its members.
The list of member states is eye-opening: Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Syria, Oman, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Yemen are all members. All but a couple of these states have faced unrest over the last year, and nearly half open civil war or regime change.
One of the things feminists often claim is that if women ran the world, there would be no more war, conflict, hunger, etc. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this to be ridiculous; female heads of state have been every bit as warmongering as their male counterparts, if not more so. From Queen Isabella and Elizabeth I to Empress Dowager Cixi, female leaders have been associated with bloodshed and chaos. Now, if we are to take her word for it, we have Asma Assad to add to the list.
One thing Westerners tend not to understand about the Arab world is that although the people themselves tend to be deeply conservative and traditional, their elites and leaders are far less so. This is beginning to become more the case in the US, but the divide is far more stark in places such as Egypt and Syria. Many of the leaders – and their wives – were educated in the liberal Western tradition when anti-traditionalism was at its peak, while opposition leaders are more likely to have gone to school in madrassas to study classical Arabic and the Koran. The Arab people see these first ladies traveling around in limousines bedecked with priceless jewels and wearing the latest fashions while mouthing platitudes about women’s rights and “progress.” In the meanwhile, young Arab men can’t find work and many of their would-be wives are stuck at home with little chance of starting a family of their own.
We aren’t there yet, but we’re getting closer by the day. If our feminists can’t see their role in creating the kind of social decay that eventually leads to regime change, it’s only because it isn’t in their nature to concern themselves with these matters. As for the Arab elites who let their wives rule, we have only to read the newspaper to see what eventually happens to men who grow soft and seek counsel in the bedchamber.
This must be some of that feminine nurturing I keep hearing about. How women are sympathetic and compassionate to the cries of their people and rush in to save them. According to a lot of Lifetime movies this is the case. These positive traits remind me of bigfoot: widely talked about but rarely seen in actuality. I'm sure a lot of these women have the hearts of children-in jars on their desks.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Just say no to Jane and Gloria
Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem want to censor Rush Limbaugh for his comments concerning Sandra Fluke. First of all Rush has the right to say what he wants as the 1st Amendment gives him that right,whether Fonda or Steinem like it or not. If these two are such champions of "doing the right thing" then perhaps Hanoi Jane can do some time for her treasonous acts against the United States during a time of war, specifically the Viet Nam War. If a man has done what Hanoi Jane did he would have been sentenced for treason and quite possibly dead by now. If Steinem has no problem with censorship then she doesn't mind if feminist forums and blogs are censored. After all there is a lot of evil things said on these forums and blogs,the Agent Orange files prove this. So how about it you two? Do you want to play censorship where both sides are shut down or do you just want to continue to talk out of your asses,demonstrating your hypocrisy? I already have a feeling I know which one you'll choose.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Getting VAWA on the ropes
The following is from SAVE services:
As we've mentioned before, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization. VAWA has many short-comings. Last week we told you about the lack of accountability and accreditation. Today we're focusing on VAWA's lack of equal protection.
VAWA provides legal assistance to accusers, but not to the accused. Read "My Son Had No Chance to Prove His Innocence" (click here) to see how VAWA is negatively impacting innocent families.
Senator Leahy is still trying to get enough co-sponsors to avoid a filibuster, but he hasn't succeeded yet. We need to make sure he doesn't get any more.
Today we're asking you to call senators Bob Corker (or send email) and Lamar Alexander of TN (or send email). Call Sen. Corker at his Washington DC office: 202-224-3344, and call Sen. Alexander at his office: (202) 224-4944.
We're holding the line. Don't let go now!
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
No problem,we can call and/or email to get the message out to make sure male victims of domestic violence get the services they need. If you are a male victim of domestic violence or know someone who is then phone or send email to make sure their voices are heard and that they receive the help they need.
As we've mentioned before, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization. VAWA has many short-comings. Last week we told you about the lack of accountability and accreditation. Today we're focusing on VAWA's lack of equal protection.
VAWA provides legal assistance to accusers, but not to the accused. Read "My Son Had No Chance to Prove His Innocence" (click here) to see how VAWA is negatively impacting innocent families.
Senator Leahy is still trying to get enough co-sponsors to avoid a filibuster, but he hasn't succeeded yet. We need to make sure he doesn't get any more.
Today we're asking you to call senators Bob Corker (or send email) and Lamar Alexander of TN (or send email). Call Sen. Corker at his Washington DC office: 202-224-3344, and call Sen. Alexander at his office: (202) 224-4944.
We're holding the line. Don't let go now!
Sincerely,
Teri
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
No problem,we can call and/or email to get the message out to make sure male victims of domestic violence get the services they need. If you are a male victim of domestic violence or know someone who is then phone or send email to make sure their voices are heard and that they receive the help they need.
Women to regulate men's sex lives
Ohio Sen. Nina Turner joins women across country striking back, introducing bills to regulate sex lives of men
Published: Friday, March 09, 2012, 5:15 AM Updated: Monday, March 12, 2012, 7:33 AM
By Diane Suchetka, The Plain Dealer
A bill introduced by state Sen. Nina Turner would require men to undergo psychological evaluations before they could get prescriptions for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Women legislators across the country are fighting back against laws that govern their sex lives with legislation of their own -- introducing bills that, among other things, would prevent men from having vasectomies or require them to undergo psychological evaluation before they can get prescriptions for Viagra.
And state Sen. Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, is joining them.
A week ago, Turner announced Senate Bill 307, which would require a man who wants an erectile dysfunction drug to provide his doctor with a notarized affidavit -- from at least one sex partner -- that says he's had symptoms in the previous 90 days.
Turner says she also wants to rally women across the country to push for similar bills in their states.
"It's not a joke," Turner told The Plain Dealer this week. "I'm dead serious. I want to continue this strong dialogue about what is fair and what is equal."
"It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs," she said in a written statement.
"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues. The least we can do is return the favor."
The recent trend of women introducing bills to regulate the sexual health of men isn't surprising, says Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women vice president who oversees grassroots organizing efforts.
"Women are fed up," Matson said by phone Thursday from a meeting in Phoenix.
"What I'm seeing from my position in talking to women around the country - older women and a lot of younger women, too - is outrage, shock, anger and fear.
"We are sitting in the middle of another Anita Hill moment right now," she said, referring to the woman who, in 1991, accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. "This is a galvanizing moment for a whole new generation of feminists and women."
The intrusion by male lawmakers into the personal lives of women, Matson and others say, has gone too far. And it's time to speak up."
One person who has decided to take a stand is Stacey Newman, a Democratic state representative from Missouri.
"It's to all of our advantages that we keep this in the conversation," said Newman, who introduced a bill in Missouri two weeks ago that "prohibits a vasectomy from being performed on a man unless it is to save his life or prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment."
Newman told The Plain Dealer that she was inspired in part by Rep. Yasmin Neal of Georgia, who in early February introduced a bill in the Georgia legislature that also attempted to prohibit vasectomies.
"It is patently unfair that men can avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly," said Neal's bill, which died after not moving forward in the required 30 days.
"Fewer unwanted pregnancies result in fewer children living in poverty and a lower prison population and this is job killing in a time when social workers, police officers, and prison guards need the employment to feed their families. . . "
Turner's bill, on the other hand, stays focused on men's health.
"The side effects of these drugs are very real," she told The Plain Dealer. "I want to [protect] fragile men who are vulnerable and are not able to make decisions for themselves."
Turner's bill says no physician can prescribe a drug to treat erectile dysfunction, until he or she:
• Obtains a notarized affidavit from the patient in which at least one of the patient's sex partners certifies that the patient has experienced symptoms of erectile dysfunction in the previous 90 days.
• Refers the patient to a sexual therapist approved by the state medical board for an assessment of the possible causes of the patient's symptoms and obtains a written report in which the therapist concludes that the patient's symptoms are not psychological.
• Conducts a cardiac stress test and obtains a result, in writing, that says the patient's cardiac health is compatible with sexual activity.
• Notifies the patient in writing of the potential risks and complications associated with taking erectile dysfunction drugs.
• Declares in writing, under penalty of perjury, that the drugs are necessary to treat erectile dysfunction and describes the physician's medical rationale for issuing the prescription.
• Places all of the described documents in the patient's medical record.
Reports of her proposed law have made headlines on news websites and blogs across the country.
"What's good for the goose," one website said.
Another named Turner one of its Heroines of the Week.
Turner proposed the law out of frustration with House Bill 125, which would effectively ban most abortions in Ohio because it prohibits them if a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
That can be as early as six weeks after conception and it can be before a woman knows she is pregnant. There's no exception for rape or incest.
The Ohio House passed the "heartbeat" bill in June and it has moved to the Senate. If it passes, Ohio will have one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
The language in Turner's bill, she says, plays off legislation aimed at women's health, including Ohio's heartbeat bill, sponsored by Rep. Lynn Wachtmann. He's a Republican from Napoleon in Northwest Ohio.
"I feel like we need to equalize the sexual health debate, to provide care for the more powerful breed of the sexes," Turner said by phone. There are other natural remedies for impotence, she said. "Like celibacy."
"The sad part about that is when people introduce legislation that infringes on women's liberties, nobody bats an eye or thinks it's strange," she said. But take the same tack with men, she said, and the reaction is completely different.
Dr. John Willke of Cincinnati, former president of National Right to Life, says there's no relationship between the law Turner is proposing and the anti-abortion legislation Ohio and other states are considering.
"This is not a drug, this is a question of whether or not to offer some protection for living, viable, human babies or whether we're going to keep killing them at the rate we are," said Willke, who worked as an obstetrician. "This has nothing to do with women's rights, it has everything to do with fetal rights."
Turner does have the support of at least one man.
"It's an excellent way of answering some of the male-dominated individuals in the legislature who continuously think a woman's place is still in the home, in the kitchen with an apron on," state Rep. Bob Hagan of Youngstown said of her bill.
"Their constant introduction of attacks on women -- whether it has to do with abortion, reproductive rights or health care -- I think is a manifestation of their fear of being sexually inadequate.
"And I think Nina really takes it on. She hit the nail right on the head."
Turner said she has not yet heard from the makers of Viagra, Cialis and other drugs.
"But I fully expect some resistance to this bill," she said.
She also said she will give the chairman of the health and human services and aging committee some time to schedule a hearing on SB307, now that Super Tuesday is over. But if he takes too long, she said, she'll make a formal request.
Pfizer Inc., which makes Viagra, isn't weighing in on Turner's bill.
"We don't comment on pending legislation," said Pfizer spokesman Peter O'Toole.
With Angela Townsend, Plain Dealer Reporter.
Source: click here
So let me get this straight,if a woman,even if it's a woman he had a one night stand with,will decide if gets treatment or not. The woman,not the doctor,will make the decision. If women are going to write bills such as this then perhaps the Taliban has the right idea in restricting them. Perhap we should do the same.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Walk a mile in her shoes...or else
Mississippi State students forced to “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes”
(Washington D.C. Mar 10, 2012 AVFM News) On Monday, March 5th, hundreds of male students donned high heel shoes and marched on the campus of Mississippi State University in the second annual Walk a Mile In Her Shoes event sponsored by MSU’s Sexual Assault Services Office. Billed as an event in which men march to end sexual assault, the event is only one of many such events held around the world which are promoted by Venture Humanity Inc., a California nonprofit organization.
“Each year, an ever-increasing number of men, women and their families are joining the Walk a Mile in Her Shoes. The International Men’s March to Stop Rape, Sexual Assault & Gender Violence. A Walk a Mile in Her Shoes Event is a playful opportunity for men to raise awareness in their community about the serious causes, effects and remediation to sexualized violence.” the home page of walkamileinhershoes.org states, clearly implying that this is an all volunteer effort my men everywhere to combat sexual violence.
But the event on Monday was not playful and it is ambiguous how by wearing high heel shoes men would do anything to help genuine victims of sexual assault. It was also anything but voluntary and “Raising Awareness” in this case meant administrative and social coercion of male students, almost exclusivity from the Greek community, to participate as well as distributing literature and raising more money.
The crowd of marching men were subjected to demeaning slurs from the crowd of onlookers and given hand written notes from members of a virtually all female audience implying their complicity in the supposed sexual assault epidemic.“Female students stood on the side lines. Over 400 male students wore heals and walked in a 1/4 mile circle, four times while the female students stood and watched, mostly smiling and some were laughing.
Also, they had a female student model walk in front of the formation with the 400+ men following her. She is a member of the fashion board; there were lots of female students from the fashion board at the event. The men who followed her were mostly in heels and about half of them were carrying signs that said things like, “Rape Hurts Us All.’
‘There were several men in suits who talked on the microphone and reported the 1-in-4 rape statistic, among many other false statistics. One statistic that I heard several times was that women are more likely to be victims of non-lethal intimate partner violence than men. They never said anything about lethal intimate partner violence. Apparently there must have been a tie between men and women when it came to lethal intimate partner violence so they just ignore that statistic and only talk about non-lethal intimate partner violence.” said Ben Robinson, a MSU engineering student and MRA otherwise known by his YouTube names “HelperDogfromHell” and “ConnectingRod911”
Robinson has been an active MRA on campus making videos about the Clothesline Project, another event organized by the Sexual Assault Services Office, in which tee shirts upon which slogans were written such as “33% of all women will be raped in their lifetime” and “Daddy why did you steal my innocence” were hung on the quad. Robinson devoted a video to the event on his YouTube channel and also chronicled the event on Monday for AVFM News.
The Sexual Assault Services Office, part of the Division of Relationship Violence and Outreach at MSU is one of the most energetic administrative entities of it’s kind in higher education. In April of last year the MSU student newspaper, The Reflector, reported that the SAS office received a competitive grant from the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women. The $300,000 grant named the “Campus Grant Program” is one of twenty one competitive grants distributed by the OVAW who’s recipients are given broad discretion on how to use the funds. There are generous provisions for the increase of salaries, benefits and travel expenses to any recipient organization. The purpose of the grant is outlined by the OVAW as follows:
“The Grants to Reduce Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking on Campus Program (Campus Program) encourages institutions of higher education to adopt comprehensive, coordinated responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Campuses, in partnership with community-based nonprofit victim advocacy organizations and local criminal justice or civil legal agencies, must adopt protocols and policies that treat violence against women as a serious offense and develop victim service programs that ensure victim safety, offender accountability, and the prevention of such crimes.”
In other words the grant was not only an income booster for personnel but also a source of money for both law enforcement organizations like the campus police who, curiously, were required to wear high heel shoes as well, and other non profit organizations like The Clothesline Project and Walk a Mile In Her Shoes. The efforts of these organizations are ostensibly aimed at “raising awareness” of sexual assault.
On the strict condition of anonymity, a member of a participating fraternity spoke with AVFM about the event. He said that the Intra Fraternity Council (IFC), an administrative body who enforces rules and guidelines set both within the Greek community itself and by the school administration evoked a “Standards Requirement,” imposed to ensure a participation rate of at least 80% for all fraternities. Consequences for non-compliance of this requirement include revocation of privileges for individual fraternity members as well as suspension or termination of a fraternity’s charter.
“People seemed to get hostile when topics came up like ‘hey don’t you think that this is weird or wrong’ and the reaction would be like ‘hey, what are you implying? there isn’t anything weird or wrong about rape?’ Said the student who indicated that there was an extreme amount of social coercion as well as administrative pressure to participate in the event.
“Its ridiculous, its humiliating” said the student. “I think that it doesn’t serve the purpose that it’s meant to serve, I think that it is more or less of a shaming tactic aimed at humiliating instead of teaching someone a lesson and if they are trying to teach a lesson what lesson would that be? You are taking gentlemen, basically, who care about women and care about women feeling better about themselves and their safety and you are making them humiliate themselves for the benefit of what? Not all men are rapists but that is basically the message that an event like this conveys. Even the thought of that if you take a step back is preposterous that all men are rapists.”
When asked how he felt about the other activities going on on campus initiated by the SAS office he said: “I have seen things posted around campus all throughout the year like the ‘one in four women will be raped in their lifetime’ statistic which shocks me because of all the girls I know only one says they’ve been raped and I think that is bazaar.” The student went on to describe fliers that were posted in the bathroom stalls of the building where he took most of his classes distributed by the SAS office. “That implies to me like someone saying ‘hey you, taking a piss right now, look at what we are posting right now you shouldn’t rape people.’”
He would be correct in thinking that not all men at MSU were rapists. According to annual Campus Police reports there have only been four reported rapes from 2005 to 2010. This on a campus who’s fall enrollment was between 15,000 and 20,000 students during that time period roughly half of whom were female. Rape, by far, is the least common violent crime reported.
Figures like these didn’t deter the SAS office from inviting Venture Humanity Inc. to endorse a Walk a Mile In Her Shoes event at MSU. Venture Humanity requires a licensing fee of $125 dollars for every event and has copyrighted its name. Merchandise is also available and you are encouraged to buy signs and other materials from the online store. “What started out as a small group of men daring to totter around a park has grown to become a world-wide movement with tens of thousands of men raising millions of dollars for local rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters and other sexualized violence education, prevention and remediation programs.” boasts their website which also collects donations.
Shoes, however, are key. An outfit called Le Dame Footwear, a distributor without a storefront located in a residential neighborhood in Verona Wisconsin, just outside Madison, is the official provider for these events. Specializing in over sized feminine footwear, they boast the ability to provide shoes for an impressive women’s sizes 10 ½ to 17 (wide) or a men’s size 9 to 15 (medium). The owner of Le Dame Footwear, Bernie J. Fatla, was recently elected to the board of directors of Venture Humanity Inc.
“Le Dame Footwear has been providing shoes for these walks at a significant discount to the participating organizations as part of their effort to promote this cause. Le Dame Foot ware also makes an annual donation to Walk a Mile Organization based on the total number of pairs of the “Natilie” sold.” Le Dame’s press release concerning Fatla’s ascension to the board states. The “Natile” being a popular model of shoe provided by the company supposedly designed just for this event selling for $92.99.
The shoes provided for the event at MSU were paid for by the SAS Office.
In correspondence with AVFM News in which Robinson described the humiliating signs the male students were required to carry and the taunts they received from onlooking female students he provided a copy of the attached “Pledge to End Sexual Violence.” “”The Pledge” involved men in suits standing before a microphone reading the pledge on that slip of paper I am attaching. Hundreds of men repeated the words of that pledge before on-looking college girls.” said Robinson. “This is just wrong, Bob. It’s plain wrong. I want these types of rallies to disappear from this college.”
Over one hundred Walk a Mile in Her Shoes events are planned so far according to the sites schedule of events. Most of which are on college campuses.
Source:click here
Source:click here
Daddy Justice gets justice
Lisalyn Jacobs Cops a Plea from Ben Vonderheide on Vimeo.
Remember Lisalyn Jacobs the woman who assaulted Daddy Justice when he did that expose' on VAWA supporters in the U.S. Senate (click here). Well apparently she has been sentenced to 32 hours of community service and she has to leave Daddy Justice alone and not harass him. Not only does she get community service,I know some wished she were locked up,but she also has a criminal record now. Of course she may have always had one but we didn't know about it. Anyway about it NOW has a convicted criminal as their lead counsel which is fine because when it comes to criminality NOW and criminals go hand in hand.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
SLPC declares war on the MRM
The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled various men's rights sites as "hate sites". Among these organizations that were labeled "misogynistic" were Markymark's Thoughts,SAVE services and the False Rape Society. I'm sure regular readers of this blog already know that the 3 preceeding blogs are far from "misogynist" yet they are labeled "hate sites". Ironically, a radical feminist website,Radfem Hub also picked up the story as well. Having the Radfem Hub call anyone a "bigot" is like the Nation of Islam calling the Ku Klux Klan "racist". They just look like hypocrites. Apparently the SLPC and radical feminists are on the same page because they are spared the "hate" label yet they are a legitimate hate group. I guess the SLPC has no problem allying itself with radical feminists. Who is the leader of the SPLC? There are two leaders of this group. One is Morris Dees. Dees is truly one depraved individual which makes me think the SLPC is one big shakedown and scam operation. They're turning up the heat and we'll turn it up too. We're not backing down in fact we'll stand toe to toe with them. They're not going to win,I won't let them. We won't let them. Let's do it.
Also check out Ken Silverstein's article concerning Morris Dees:click here.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Boycott Maine products
If you haven't watched this video you are invited to do so. It is very shocking and has some troubling signs when half of humanity has their rights basically raped from them so that feminists don't have to suffer some imagined fear. Governor Tim LaPage has said that he came from an abusive enviroment and now he's getting even with daddy by painting all men with that broadbrush with "a lock em up and throw away the key along with their civil liberties and Constitutional rights" mentality. If misandry is going to be the official policy of the State of Maine then perhaps we should boycatt all Maine products and spread the word about the boycott.
JUST SAY NO TO MAINE PRODUCTS.
JUST SAY NO TO MAINE PRODUCTS.
US DOJ report shows women are more violent.
This just in: female rapists outnumber male rapists and they prey on incarcerated juviniles. They are the staff members of these lock-ups that place juviniles in greater harm. Don't believe me? fine click here to read it for yourself. When you consider:
• Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
• Thirteen facilities were identified as “high rate” based on the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval of at least 35% higher than the average rate among facilities by type of consent. Six facilities had victimization rates of 30% or more
Source:click here
I always thought that if women were the ones doing the raping then rape would be legal. It is close to that point when a society places more value on adult women who misbehave than at-risk youth. At one time both men and women sacrificed themselves so that the children may live today men and children are slaughtered by the women at their whims,making sure the man and child(ren) are sacrificed for the woman. We are at that point now when husbands/boyfriends and children are expendable. Neither one of their lives add up to hers,at least not in the eyes of this monstosity of a matriarchy.
• Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
• Thirteen facilities were identified as “high rate” based on the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval of at least 35% higher than the average rate among facilities by type of consent. Six facilities had victimization rates of 30% or more
Source:click here
I always thought that if women were the ones doing the raping then rape would be legal. It is close to that point when a society places more value on adult women who misbehave than at-risk youth. At one time both men and women sacrificed themselves so that the children may live today men and children are slaughtered by the women at their whims,making sure the man and child(ren) are sacrificed for the woman. We are at that point now when husbands/boyfriends and children are expendable. Neither one of their lives add up to hers,at least not in the eyes of this monstosity of a matriarchy.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Defeat the McCain bill
From Demand Progress:
Privacy Nightmare: McCain Bill Could Have Military Monitor The Internet
The message still hasn't sunk in. Congress is proposing yet another law to monitor your activities on the Internet -- Here's the ACLU's take on John McCain's new cybersecurity bill:
"This is a privacy nightmare that will eventually result in the military substantially monitoring the domestic, civilian Internet."
Will you fight back against McCain's legislation by adding your name at right?
As Reuters notes, the "types of information that could be shared are broad, and the data would go to 'cybersecurity centers' that specifically include the National Security Agency's Threat Operations Center and the U.S. Cyber Command Joint Operations Center."
We have a key opportunity to help steer this debate away from McCain's inanity and towards a more reasonable alternative.
Just sign up at right to email your lawmakers in opposition to McCain's bill.
Here's some more background from Reuters.
Source:click here
If you think that another internet snooping bill is bullshit then sign the petition. Congress seems to be on a quest to see who can get away with trampling our freedoms and now McCain is taking a shot. Does McCain know what it's like to be Sopa'd? Let's show him how it feels. Sign the petition today.
Privacy Nightmare: McCain Bill Could Have Military Monitor The Internet
The message still hasn't sunk in. Congress is proposing yet another law to monitor your activities on the Internet -- Here's the ACLU's take on John McCain's new cybersecurity bill:
"This is a privacy nightmare that will eventually result in the military substantially monitoring the domestic, civilian Internet."
Will you fight back against McCain's legislation by adding your name at right?
As Reuters notes, the "types of information that could be shared are broad, and the data would go to 'cybersecurity centers' that specifically include the National Security Agency's Threat Operations Center and the U.S. Cyber Command Joint Operations Center."
We have a key opportunity to help steer this debate away from McCain's inanity and towards a more reasonable alternative.
Just sign up at right to email your lawmakers in opposition to McCain's bill.
Here's some more background from Reuters.
Source:click here
If you think that another internet snooping bill is bullshit then sign the petition. Congress seems to be on a quest to see who can get away with trampling our freedoms and now McCain is taking a shot. Does McCain know what it's like to be Sopa'd? Let's show him how it feels. Sign the petition today.
SOPA and PIPA are dead
From Demand Progress:
What a difference a few months makes. Check out today's big headline:
POLITICO: Pols fear SOPA 'backlash'
The work we've done together has started to change the game in Washington -- and the politicians are terrified:
In the wake of the Internet blackout that led to the dramatic death of two controversial online piracy bills, a new warning has entered the Hill vernacular: “Don’t get SOPA’d.”
There's still a lot of work in front of us -- and plenty of politicians and bills that we need to make damned sure do get SOPA'd:
•SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith wants to force ISPs to track and retain Internet users' data -- but we've been able to stymie him.
•John McCain's cybersecurity bill would give the military new powers to monitor the civilian Internet -- but in the last 3 days more than 60,000 Demand Progress members have fought back.
•The National Defense Authorization Act allows the military to detain Americans without charge or trial -- but we're helping keep the pressure on, in the halls of the Capitol and in the courts.
The fight never ends, but it's clear that our work together has had a tremendous impact.
We've changed the way Washington thinks about civil liberties and Internet freedom.
It looks like PIPA and SOPA are dead. Way to go,everyone we did it. We've got the government scared of the people which is how it should be. Give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.
What a difference a few months makes. Check out today's big headline:
POLITICO: Pols fear SOPA 'backlash'
The work we've done together has started to change the game in Washington -- and the politicians are terrified:
In the wake of the Internet blackout that led to the dramatic death of two controversial online piracy bills, a new warning has entered the Hill vernacular: “Don’t get SOPA’d.”
There's still a lot of work in front of us -- and plenty of politicians and bills that we need to make damned sure do get SOPA'd:
•SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith wants to force ISPs to track and retain Internet users' data -- but we've been able to stymie him.
•John McCain's cybersecurity bill would give the military new powers to monitor the civilian Internet -- but in the last 3 days more than 60,000 Demand Progress members have fought back.
•The National Defense Authorization Act allows the military to detain Americans without charge or trial -- but we're helping keep the pressure on, in the halls of the Capitol and in the courts.
The fight never ends, but it's clear that our work together has had a tremendous impact.
We've changed the way Washington thinks about civil liberties and Internet freedom.
It looks like PIPA and SOPA are dead. Way to go,everyone we did it. We've got the government scared of the people which is how it should be. Give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done.
More fighting VAWA
The following is from SAVE:
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization. Since it was first introduced in 1994, this nice-sounding bill has been described as the solution to domestic violence. And most people believed that claim, as evidenced by it's 2005 reauthorization.
That all changed once Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and victims' groups started educating the public and staffers on Capitol Hill about the problems with VAWA.
SAVE wants accountability added to stop the misuse of grant monies. We want restrictions removed so advocates can open shelters primarily for abused men. And, among other things, we want accreditation to be mandatory, to stop the widespread promotion of inaccurate "facts."
Today we're asking you to call Kelly Ayotte, a senator from New Hampshire who is committed to upholding the Constitution. Please ask her to vote NO on VAWA. You can call Sen. Ayotte at her Washington DC office: 202-224-3324
Or you can contacther by email.
Thank you so much for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Let's meke that contact. Let's keep getting VAWA on the ropes. The fight continues.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization. Since it was first introduced in 1994, this nice-sounding bill has been described as the solution to domestic violence. And most people believed that claim, as evidenced by it's 2005 reauthorization.
That all changed once Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) and victims' groups started educating the public and staffers on Capitol Hill about the problems with VAWA.
SAVE wants accountability added to stop the misuse of grant monies. We want restrictions removed so advocates can open shelters primarily for abused men. And, among other things, we want accreditation to be mandatory, to stop the widespread promotion of inaccurate "facts."
Today we're asking you to call Kelly Ayotte, a senator from New Hampshire who is committed to upholding the Constitution. Please ask her to vote NO on VAWA. You can call Sen. Ayotte at her Washington DC office: 202-224-3324
Or you can contacther by email.
Thank you so much for taking action on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
Let's meke that contact. Let's keep getting VAWA on the ropes. The fight continues.
War on women?
One of the things we have heard these last few days is this so-called "war on women". This "war on women" is the biggest joke to ever come out of the mainstream media or should I say the lamestream media. All this "war on women" is about (or any other "war on women" for that matter) is to garner female votes for Barrack Obama. The "war on women" is a phony war while the "war on men" is very real,as regular readers of this blog will attest to. Rush should have never apologized considering he was in the right to say what he did when he called a spade a spade. Each side is pandering to women and the best way to see it is to look beyond Hannity because when is Hannity NOT pandering to women. Where is this phony "war on women" going? Who knows but we all know how the very real war on men is going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)