Online Dating Rights

International Marriage Broker Act (IMBRA) => IMBRA and Media => Topic started by: khankrumthebulgar on September 26, 2007, 05:20:42 AM

Title: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: khankrumthebulgar on September 26, 2007, 05:20:42 AM
Carey Roberts
IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax

September 26, 2007 at 3:29 am · Filed under Vox Populi

Want a textbook example how the Left manufactures a crisis, passes a law that rolls back Constitutional protections, snookers card-carrying conservatives, and bilks American taxpayers? Look no farther than IMBRA, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act.

A little background: It’s no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband “to put one’s personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family.”

And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.

Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.

A few years ago University of Pittsburgh professor Nicole Constable set out to probe the inner workings of these dating agencies. In her book Romance on a Global Stage, Constable revealed the international match-makers were simply responding to a human need for companionship and love. Many men who marry foreign brides “went to great lengths to ensure their partner’s comfort and happiness in the United States,” she noted.

But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women’s marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!

So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation. They knew convincing Congress to regulate romance would be a hard sell. So they resorted to their tried and true formula of hackneyed stereotypes, outright demagoguery, and appeals to male chivalry.

It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of “mail-order brides,” casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as “marriage brokers,” conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.

On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script.

During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, “there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers.” As proof of that “epidemic,” she highlighted the cases of three abused women.

Cantwell’s depiction of comely maidens being seduced into prostitution rings was more than Sen. Sam Brownback could resist, and before long he signed on as a leading co-sponsor of the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. With liberals and conservatives now on board, IMBRA’s political star was rising.

But it turns out that Senator Cantwell’s supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale.

There was the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report that revealed, “less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry.” []

A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are “dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate.” []

And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. []

But in the politically-correct atmosphere that envelopes Washington these days, agendas count for more than the truth.

So after the gavel fell on the Senate hearing, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act was bundled into the Violence Against Women Act. That law was signed into law on January 5, 2006. A few days later, Fox News columnist Wendy McElroy castigated the act as branding all American men as “abusers.” []

Now, any man who wishes to go through an international dating company must submit to an extensive background check. That’s right, guys, get ready to tell them about your arrests, criminal history, restraining orders, how many times you’ve been married, and even how many children you have. For good measure, don’t forget the sex offender registry check.

So thanks to Senator Cantwell’s artful dissembling and Senator Brownback’s white-horse chivalry, men are presumed to be a threat to foreign women. And Cupid’s arrow now falls under the watchful eyes of green-visored bureaucrats.

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: frank johnson on September 26, 2007, 06:30:11 AM
Brilliant posts. In 26 well thought out posts you have managed to condense what some others (including myself) have tried to stress in hundreds and hundreds of posts only you did it without all the unnecessary fat and ego.

Please keep it up and most importantly expand your efforts beyond just posting here. If you can be as active outside of this forum as you are within it, American men may be able to reclaim their balls and freedom from Layli Miller-Muro and her Bahai feminazis.

Thank you fellow PATRIOT.

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: khankrumthebulgar on September 26, 2007, 07:03:21 AM

I have been posting on, and other Conservative blogs for two years now. I have a blog hosted on Opera a Norwegian browser. Which I enjoy using. I used to post on But was banned by the Women running the Men's Rights Blogs as too vocal. They are Feminist controlled anyway.

I have come to this forum and am spreading the word out there. What I have found is that most Conservative Women pay lip Service to Men's Rights. Our Women embrace what I call Ala Carte Feminism. They pick and choose which aspects of Feminist benefits and legal perks Women receive, while denying they are Misandrists.

We have seen an evolution of Feminism since the 1960s. From Second Wave Feminism the so called Bra Burners to Slut Feminism and Raunch Feminism today. Where we have Cuntfests, the Vagina Monolgues, Porn Stars on College Campuses etc. And Many Leading Hollywood Actresses supporting the Vagina Monologues.

In the 1980s the banter, turned decidely ugly. With Feminists and the Hollywood Media declaring "All Men Are Pigs". You may remember that time. And thereafter a wave of False Rape Accusations began to emerge. Then Equity Feminists like Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers were kicked out of the Movement. The Man Hating Lesbians and Mentally Ill Women took over the Movement. And we had Gender Feminism.

Feminists then set their sights on attacking Boys. It is now acceptable for Feminists to have sex with Children or to kill them. And Now it is acceptable to kill Husbands, even Preachers are now targets. When will the US Women get a clue??? I for one have been waiting for 3 decades. Their silence about the Hatred of Men, children, and Marriages is deafening.

Even US Churches are embracing Gender Feminist ideaologies. And using Shaming Language to scold Men into coming back to the Altar to marry. IMBRA is in fact a response to Economics.

Women are a commodity like Pork Bellies or Beef. So are Men. When any commodity becomes unreasonable in its price. An acceptable Substitute will arise. This is basic Macro Economics. Hence Men perceive the costs for and Risk Rewards are stacked against them with American Women. So they are either not Marrying in greater numbers or Marrying Foreign Women. To reduce their risks. Feminists cannot have this. Their movement will implode.

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: tristan on September 26, 2007, 07:41:28 AM

I inserted a link in your posting.  Many people want to see the original source to a document.

I also moved the topic here to IMBRA and Media.

Now I am going to mention this article on the main page and link to this topic as this is a very important article.


Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: Yikes! on September 01, 2008, 08:46:54 PM
Here's another good story about VAWA before IMBRA from 2005.
Original story link at

Unconstitutional VAWA Law Helped By A Propaganda Ploy
April 13, 2005
by Carey Roberts

What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA - the Violence Against Women Act -- that's what.

For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There's no excuse for domestic violence against a woman.

OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns?

Here's the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.

Chances are you've been heard the urban legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I'm going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands.

We're not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true -- you can see for yourself by visiting this website.

Here's how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: "men and women commit violence at similar rates."

Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: "Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression."

It's not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male.

So why don't we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police - nine times less likely, according to one landmark study.

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. But many in Congress were opposed to Biden's bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden's proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden's bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn't please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women's Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the "biggest day of the year for violence against women."

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to "explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten."

How's that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article "Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women," Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. But Ringle's exposé came too late -- the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood's billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn't warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP's avowed political foes.

As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support.

Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: frank johnson on September 01, 2008, 11:20:17 PM
"We MUST have the SSRA (Superbowl Sunday Regulation Act.)", screams Layli hysterically, "My "studies", as an "expert", show that more women are "premeditated tortured, serial abused, ignored and murdered" on Superbowl Sunday than any other day of the year! Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of women are slaughtered like goats at a Bahai wedding. My "facts and stats" confirm this."

"The helpless football in this horrendous display of symbolic female bashing represents a woman being battered and kicked by a man - any man - every man - not Bahais though."

"This carnage must end. Call your Congresswoman and local feminist taxpayer funded branch now and demand the SSRA and don't forget to send your generous contributions to Tahirih Justice Center (cash preferred or checks written out to "Buialuahiuah") so that I, Layli the Great, can continue our lead in defending helpless women Worldwide on the dreaded Superbowl Sunday slaughter. After that we will attack the "problem" of beer and potato chips and their role in suppressing women!"

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: Taylor on September 02, 2008, 02:34:41 AM
Nice find Yikes.  Martin S. Fiebert PhD of California State University at Long Beach has compiled a list of academic studies that document that women often initiate violence in domestic relationships when domestic violence occurs.  The studies suggest that women are just as violence-prone as men.  Here is his website:

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: Yikes! on September 02, 2008, 12:28:18 PM
Here's another great find. 

Lot's of links including a download in PDF format of the entire message board from Lifetime TV a the time when they began the campaign and propaganda for IMBRA during the premiere of the Lifetime mini-series "Human Trafficking"  Very interesting read and lots of links and exposure.

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: Delphi_Programmer on September 10, 2008, 11:32:31 PM
I watched the Lifetime miniseries on "Human Trafficking" in 2005 and it had nothing to do with the personal introduction industry.  The story focused on a "modeling" agency run by a Russian mobster who lured teenage girls with the promise of a modeling career, and then forced them to work as prostitutes.  A side plot focused on a local brothel in the Philippines where underage girls were sold by their parents and forced to service clients.  Some of these girls were as young as 12.  I remember thinking to myself after watching the show, "Well, at least they won’t go after Cherry Blossoms".  Haha!  Famous last words.

How this story could be translated into hysteria against the personal advertisement business is a huge stretch of the imagination.  A free-will meeting place where consenting adults place and answer personals ads is not even in the same league as the crime rings depicted in this miniseries.  Yet this show, like the "Super Bowl Sunday" hoax, was the boon that launched IMBRA.  What a crock!

Title: Re: IMBRA: Anatomy of a Feminist Hoax
Post by: frank johnson on September 11, 2008, 12:55:16 AM
Layli's Bahai "Faith" that helped with the series has NOTHING to do with "religion" either, yet politicians and feminists lap up Layli's lies and fabrications as

She and the Bahais are also a crock - or should I say crooks.