Online Dating Rights. Mail Order Brides
PragueVietnamMoscowGuatemala

FOUR REASONS American men seek romance abroad: Prague, Ha Long Bay, Red Square, small villages in Latin America. Somehow meeting a Czech, Vietnamese, Russian or Peruvian/Colombian/Brazilian woman for a date at one of these exotic places is incomparably more exciting than meeting a hometown girl at the local coffeeshop. Opponents of a man's right to meet foreign women online never stop to consider how enjoyable it is to travel/work/live abroad and learn new cultures and languages while seeking a marriage partner.
Online Dating Rights
September 24, 2017, 04:48:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: New York Times Article for PUBLIC Discussion  (Read 21581 times)
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2007, 11:42:03 AM »

ANYONE READING THIS MUST NOTE THAT THE ONUS IS ON HIM OR HER TO FIND A LAWYER NOW AND LAUNCH A CHALLENGE

DO NOT ASSUME THAT ANY OF US ARE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE THE ODR REGULARS ALL HAVE FULL TIME CAREERS AND NO TIME TO REALLY FIGHT IMBRA

I wouldn't compare this with smoking because second hand smoke is not only dangerous but extraordinarily irksome if blown in my face. I would punch out any guy who dared smoke in my presence when I've told him not to. That is how openly offensive it is.

For American men to date foreign women is apparently that offensive to the insecure type of American feminist women however...to them it is like blowing cigarette smoke in their faces...

so maybe the smoking comparison is a correct one but for another reason. They want to punch us out for blowing smoke in their face (in their minds - in reality I do not think of American victim feminists when I am dating here in Europe).

ALERT: THE CURRENT IMBRA STUDY WILL BE FUDGED IF A LAWSUIT DOES NOT STOP IT IN ITS TRACKS

ANYONE READING THIS MUST NOTE THAT THE ONUS IS ON HIM OR HER TO FIND A LAWYER NOW AND LAUNCH A CHALLENGE

DO NOT ASSUME THAT ANY OF US ARE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE THE ODR REGULARS ALL HAVE FULL TIME CAREERS AND NO TIME TO REALLY FIGHT IMBRA
« Last Edit: August 01, 2007, 08:06:22 PM by tristan » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
Delphi_Programmer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 613




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2007, 12:50:39 PM »

I agree with you whole heartedly.  There is a significant difference between this and smoking.  Now that I'm 2 years into abstinence from smoking I reap incredible health benefits.  I can breath better, smell better and hear better (believe it or not!).

However, there is a political common thread that runs through these two issues, different though they may be.  The anti-smoking lobby used a principle called "incrementalism".  They didn't ban smoking in the 1960's, as they would have liked.  Instead, they banned advertising, then did studies,then raised public awareness, ran a media campaign and got the public to oppose smoking.  Once that was accomplished, they succeeded in justifying incremental bans on smoking (first in airports, then in office buildings, and finally in bars and restaurants).  This is the kind of incremental, step-by-step method feminists are using to vanquish our freedoms to meet and marry foreign [younger] women!  They are using the smoking lobby as a model.

If feminists continue unopposed, I wouldn't be surprised if one day they came up with an "age-difference" law.  They would define some "reasonable" age-gap, and outlaw (as in "statutory rape") relationships outside of that age-gap, even if both parties are well into adulthood.

We must fight this law!  Unlike smokers, we pose no risk or health threat to the environment or to other people!.
Logged

Get government out of the Personals Ads and out of our personal lives.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2007, 01:06:15 PM »

You are correct. The feminists are using the anti-smoking lobby history as a pattern. Judge Clarence Cooper even said in the March 2007 IMBRA decision that he signed (but did not write) that "the industry should have known that more laws were coming and prepared for them" apparently by getting out of the business and into something feminists would find more respectable like pornography.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 05:25:57 PM by tristan » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2007, 04:45:19 PM »

But only prejudiced in the final months if not the final week...when nobody was supposed to be influencing him as far as the law is concerned.

He kept the restraining order on IMBRA for 5 months after the trial, which means the trial did not convince him of anything. He also refused to hear the extra TJC witnesses 9 months after the trial.

His attitude towards IMBRA 5 months after the trial was that the law was bad.

But Cooper is on the short list for Supreme Court nominees if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, which is sadly quite possible as far as the Intrade.com betting is concerned.

We all know that the top management of Arnold and Porter went out of their way to do the Vatican Radio stunt in late January, which tells me that they were on an offensive of some sort.

But, apparently, there is no way a federal judge can be accused of corruption.

Am I wrong? Can a citizen of the United States ask for an investigation of illegal tampering with the justice system?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 04:47:56 PM by VeteransAbroad » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
tristan
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1272



« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2007, 05:24:58 PM »

http://www.gabar.org/handbook/georgia_code_of_judicial_conduct/

This is the code for judicial ethics in Georgia.

I caution you in your characterizations of the judge's actions.
Logged

Advocacy groups that get taxpayer money for "protecting" foreign women and the thoughtless media call foreign woman a "mail order bride" if she met her husband via internet.  This is American imperialism, it is denigrating, insulting and portrays the women as helpless fools.
frank johnson
OPG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1073


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2007, 05:33:09 PM »

"Am I wrong? Can a citizen of the United States ask for an investigation of illegal tampering with the justice system?"

Sure, just ask President Bush to get an appointment for you with Alberto Gonzales.

Both of them are quite tuned in to the need for civil liberties and personal information privacy and the pursuit of justice.

Bush doesn't want to tap into your emails, phone calls and websites you visit just to compile a database on non-rich, non-Republican Americans.

Bush doesn't want to compile personal information given to Pen Pal Clubs via IMBRA just to compile a database on non-rich, non-Republicans.

Bush doesn't want to compile personal information of Americans living abroad who come back to visit the US (such as political views, etc.) just to compile a database on non-rich, non-Republicans.

Bush, Rove, Cheney, Gonzales, Miller-Muro and friends don't believe in a police state where excutive power is the final word.

They just want to protect us from Osama and the "war on terror."

They only have our best interests at heart so we should not complain when the coup happens in 2008 which will put Bush in for his life-term as King with Vice President Miller-Muro and her Bahai Faith "war on abuse against women."

Think it can't happen? Do you think Layli is just sitting in bed all day looking at her photo in front of Capital Hill with nothing but empty thoughts?

Think again.
Logged
frank johnson
OPG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1073


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2007, 06:01:21 PM »

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072807G.shtml

Travelers Face Greater Use of Personal Data
    By Paul Lewis and Spencer S. Hsu
    The Washington Post

    Friday 27 July 2007
Pact covers passengers flying from Europe to US.

    The United States and the European Union have agreed to expand a security program that shares personal data about millions of U.S.-bound airline passengers a year, potentially including information about a person's race, ethnicity, religion and health (and if they like foreign women.)

    Under the agreement, airlines flying from Europe to the United States are required to provide data related to these matters to U.S. authorities if it exists in their reservation systems. The deal allows Washington to retain and use it only "where the life of a data subject or of others could be imperiled or seriously impaired," such as in a counterterrorism (or counterabusism) investigation.

    According to the deal, the information that can be used in such exceptional circumstances includes "racial or ethnic origin, POLITICAL OPINIONS, religious or PHILISOPHICAL BELIEFS, trade union membership" and data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation.

    Airlines do not usually gather such data, but officials say it could wind up in passenger files as a result of requests for special services such as wheelchairs, or through routine questioning by airline personnel and travel agents about contacts, lodging, next of kin and traveling companions. Even a request for a king-size bed at a hotel could be noted in the database.

    The data now stored includes names, addresses and credit card information as well as telephone and e-mail contacts, itineraries, and hotel and rental car reservations.

    The deal, signed yesterday by the United States and approved Monday in Europe, provoked alarm from privacy and civil-liberties groups on both sides of the Atlantic. "What Americans should be concerned about is it is now here in black and white: The government will maintain a database of all travelers - including travelers of U.S. citizenship, including people who are believed to be no risk or threat . . . the government will maintain that and data-mine it," said Jim Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group.

    Peter Hustinx, the E.U.'s privacy supervisor, expressed "grave concern" over the plan, which he said is "without legal precedent." He wrote to E.U. officials on June 27, "I have serious doubts whether the outcome of these negotiations will be fully compatible with European fundamental rights."

    U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (and Layli Miller-Muro) praised the pact as an "essential screening tool for detecting potentially dangerous transatlantic travelers (such as American men who like foreign women.") If available at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Chertoff said, such information would have, "within a matter of moments, helped to identify many of the 19 hijackers by linking their methods of payment, phone numbers and seat assignments."

    U.S. customs officials began collecting Passenger Name Record data in 1992 for inbound international flights and enforced the requirement after the 2001 attacks. The government now stores data on nearly all 87 million passengers who arrive in the country by air each year, most of them from Europe, in a master border security database, Homeland Security officials said.

    The government combines such information with terrorist watch lists, other databases and sophisticated computer algorithms to detect high-risk travelers, in ways that watchdog groups say it has not adequately explained.

    The agreement announced yesterday extends and expands a 2004 arrangement between the United States and the European Union. That pact was struck down on a technicality in May by Europe's highest court, which gave both sides until July 31 to negotiate a new deal. The United States had threatened to turn back flights otherwise.

    Paul Rosenzweig, Homeland Security's deputy assistant secretary for policy, said sensitive information that is subject to extensive restrictions in Europe, such as data on religious beliefs and sex partners, is routinely filtered out by U.S. computer systems. To his knowledge, he said, the U.S. government has never invoked its authority to use such information.

    On the other hand, Rosenzweig said, such data might be important if U.S. authorities learn of an alert about passengers who request wheelchairs hiding bombs in leg casts, or a warning about a threat to a political gathering, or a health emergency affecting people with communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.

    Mostly, Rosenzweig said, it is threats that authorities have not thought about that worry them. "We are just not going to bind ourselves not to have full access to information that might be in Passenger Name Records if there is a severe predication and reason to do that," he said.

    Under the new accord, which will take effect in August and continue through July 2014, Europe allowed the United States to extend how long it can store data - to 15 years from 3 1/2 years. Beginning in January 2008, airlines will be required to send, or "push," data from their reservation systems to the Homeland Security Department 72 hours before a flight departs, expanding an existing "pull" system in which the department retrieves information from carriers.

    Washington won the authority to share data liberally within the government and with third countries at the discretion of Homeland Security officials, but agreed to E.U. demands to limit its uses to counterterrorism, probes of serious crimes, public health emergencies and flights from custody.

    The United States reduced the number of fields from which it will collect information about each passenger, from 34 to 19, but expanded the amount of data covered by some fields. Washington assured the European Union that its citizens will continue to have the same administrative protections as Americans to obtain information collected about them and to seek to correct errors.

    Although Homeland Security has said it will move passenger information to "dormant" status after seven years and "expects" to erase it after 15 years, it notified the E.U. that expiration of data will be subject to "further discussions."

    Dutch lawmaker Sophia in't Veld, the European Parliament's standing rapporteur on Passenger Name Records, said the agreement gives a green light to U.S. authorities to use confidential information for unstated purposes. Stavros Lambrinidis of Greece, vice chairman of the parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, warned that it allows extra data collection not just in counterterrorism cases but for "a vast and in some cases unidentified number of crimes. So we have function creep."

    U.S. officials said the agreement with Europe - which has stronger data-protection laws than many countries, including the United States - is likely to serve as a template for similar U.S. agreements covering travelers from Asia, South America and other regions, and for Europeans to set up their own, similar system.

    ----------

    Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Logged
frank johnson
OPG
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1073


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2007, 06:03:11 PM »

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080207N.shtml

A Push to Rewrite Wiretap Law
    By Ellen Nakashima
    The Washington Post

    Wednesday 01 August 2007
White House seeks warrantless authority from Congress.

    The Bush administration (and Tahirih Justice Center) is pressing Congress this week for the authority to intercept, without a court order, any international phone call or E-MAIL between a surveillance target outside the United States (such as a single female) and any person in the United States (such as a single male.)

    The proposal, submitted by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell (and Layli Miller-Muro) to congressional leaders on Friday, would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for the first time since 2006 so that a court order would no longer be needed before wiretapping anyone "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

    It would also give the attorney general sole authority to order the interception of communications for up to one year as long as he certifies that the surveillance is directed at a person outside the United States.

    The administration and its Republican allies on Capitol Hill have mounted a full-court press to get the Democratic-controlled Congress to pass the measure before lawmakers leave town this week for the August recess, trying to portray reluctant Democrats as weak on terrorism.

    Democratic lawmakers favor a narrower approach that would allow the government to wiretap foreign terrorists talking to other foreign terrorists overseas without a warrant if the communication is routed through the United States. They are also willing to give the administration some latitude to intercept foreign-to-domestic communications as long as there is oversight by the FISA court.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) suggested yesterday that a compromise could be reached this week. "The only question," he told reporters, "is how much involvement the attorney general will have" in approving the wiretapping "as compared to the FISA court itself."

    The measure faces a number of procedural roadblocks due to the crowded congressional calendar. But the administration, in an effort to speed the process, separated its immediate demands from a more sweeping proposal to rewrite FISA that became tangled in a debate between Congress and the executive branch over access to related Justice Department legal documents.

    Civil liberties and privacy groups have denounced the administration's proposal, which they say would effectively allow the National Security Agency to revive a warrantless surveillance program conducted in secret from 2001 until late 2005. They say it would also give the government authority to force carriers to turn over any international communications into and out of the United States without a court order.

    In January, the administration announced that the surveillance program was under the supervision of a special FISA court that Congress set up to independently review and judge wiretap requests when it passed FISA in 1978. But critics said that if the proposal succeeds, the court's supervision will no longer be required for many wiretaps.

    "It's the president's surveillance program on steroids," said Jim Dempsey, policy director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Dempsey said that under the new law the government would no longer have to allege that one party to the call was a member of al-Qaeda or another terrorist group. An unstated facet of the program is that anyone the foreigner is calling inside the United States, as long as that person is not the primary target, would also be wiretapped.

    "They're hiding the ball here," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "What the administration is really going after is the Americans. Even if the primary target is overseas, they want to be able to wiretap Americans without a warrant."

    The measure is intended as an "interim proposal" to close short-term "critical gaps in our intelligence capability," McConnell said in a letter to congressional leaders. It would make clear that court orders are not necessary to "effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas."

    Bush, in his Saturday radio address, said that rewriting FISA is necessary because the "the terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again." GOP leaders have accused Democrats of blocking changes, suggesting that if another attack happens, Democrats will be to blame.

    "With heightened risk of terror attack, why are Democrats holding up critical FISA changes?" read a news release issued yesterday by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). "It's time for Democrats to stop ignoring, downplaying and sidestepping our FISA problem and start working with Republicans to keep America safe."

    Democratic leaders have been working with administration officials on altering FISA, aides said. "I am committed to giving our intelligence community the tools they need to fight terrorism and am working very hard with the most senior members of the administration to do that as soon as possible," Reid said.

    Democrats have said for more than a year that they are willing to make targeted changes, such as making explicit that wiretapping a call between two suspects overseas, where the call that happens to pass through the United States, needs no court order.

    But Reid said, "We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security."

    The proposal would also allow the NSA to "sit on the wire" and have access to the entire stream of communications without the phone company sorting, said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

    "It's a 'trust us' system," she said. "Give us access and trust us."

    --------

    Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
Logged
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2007, 02:06:00 AM »

Tristan: Exactly how does a private citizen have to "be careful" in wanting an investigation of an obvious act of corruption by a federal judge?

I realize that the Smith precedent means that federal judges are above the law. Justice Smith was impeached in the late 1700s for being a drunkard, but Congress did not remove him from office, setting the precedent that there was almost nothing a federal judge could do to be removed or punished.

Frank: It is the kiss of death to characterize ODR regulars as not being Republicans with money.

Republican judges will be reading ODR carefully in the near future. You want them to understand, at least in my case and many of the others here, that it was their own kind that the Republicans screwed over by finally yielding to the Democrats who have tried to get more and more of these feminist laws passed for 20 years. Where have you been?

The very core of the legal challenge is going to have to be that the Republican Party was irrational to turn its back on its main constituency.

On wiretapping: I think it would be a hell of a lot more fair if the NSA did just wiretap my phone calls with foreign women, instead of actively interfering with the hello process as IMBRA unnecessarily does.

I think we should actually ask the government in a challenge to wiretap us instead.

What would be clever about that is that the 4 liberal Supreme Court Justices (Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg) would have to say "No! The government cannot interfere by listening in." But then to uphold IMBRA, they would have to say "But they can interfere by delaying contact with others via paperwork".

There are lots of methods to intellectually force a 9-0 decision in an IMBRA challenge.

Our problem (and one that apparently only Tristan and I are occassionally trying to solve) is finding the kind of intellectual lawyer who sees his or her own rights violated (and thus works largely pro bono) and who can stay on top of this and react quickly to the inevitable shenanigans from the other side.

Meanwhile Frank: Please understand that Justice Breyer and Stevens never saw an act of Congress that wasn't justified by stretching the Commerce Clause (Congress has the right to make commerce regular - later changed to regulate commerce which does not have the same meaning now as it did 200 years ago).

If you do a study of Supreme Court rulings, you will find that nobody who distrusts politicians could ever vote Democrat at least for President of the USA.

President Kerry would have reamed you in 2005 and he would have added two justices who would have upheld IMBRA in a heartbeat based on the Commerce Clause that says that Congress can do no wrong and is always rational (court history always refers to the word "rational" as if it is possible to ever prove that Congress was "irrational"). At least with Alito and Roberts, we have guys who take a close look at what the founding fathers wanted the country to be.

That is not to say that these guys won't be heavily influenced and pressured outside the courtroom.

A top lawyer at Jones Day, the other and more conservative firm that volunteered to help TJC in the AODA Case, is best friends with Sam Alito and helped get him on the court.

Getting back to the discussion of "rational"...

1) Is there any history of an act of Congress being proven "irrational" ever?

2) Frank: Can you research the speeches of our Republican allies who voted against IMRA in 2003 and before? Which specific Republicans helped defeat IMBRA in 2003 but later voted for IMBRA in 2005? This is crucial information.

3) Frank: Please research all past "decisions of Judge Cooper". I want to be able to prove that he was contradicting himself.

We may not be able to prove corruption, and I frankly don't expect any lawyer to dare accuse him of it, but it can be shown that he "contradicted himself for some reason".

From what I remember, Cooper is a major defender of sex offender rights of all things.

He probably put the restraining order on IMBRA because he thought we might be real sex offenders whom he had to defend.

When Cooper found out that we were mostly regular Republican guys...he no longer felt the political need to defend us.
Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
VeteransAbroad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


This is a subway in Russia. Poor country?


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2007, 03:36:06 AM »

Frank: If you do still have any faith in Democrat males not to willingly go to the castration room when the feminists finally demand that...

you are welcome to find someone like Al Sharpton who will speak out and say "Wait a minute! This is against all Democrat ideals. My constituents in Harlem have every right to meet women from Ethiopia without background checks. If IMBRA stands, then black men who go to liquor stores can be identified as a subgroup that needs to be monitored while dating."

But there are two problems with what I just said:

1) Sharpton is a fake who would not stand up for the males in his constituency. He is funded by feminists.

2) You won't get an anonymous email address and write to people other than posting here. You won't get a Skype phone and start making calls to Democrats.

I have contacted male Democrat journalists...which is an exercise in seeing what it is like to see a man with his manhood cut completely off surgically.

Here is the email address of a liberal columnist named Robert who wrote an excellent article about how the Republican Party was anti-male because it condemns the age difference in Fred Thompson's marriage:

tww9@mindspring.com

He hit the nail on the head regarding the phony religious right being extremely anti-male, but on IMBRA he wrote back to simply say:

"I do not define feminism that way. People have different definitions. That's life"

What kind of wimpy, castrated response was that to being introduced to IMBRA?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2007, 03:49:51 AM by VeteransAbroad » Logged

Honest journalists will see the Tahirih Justice Center as a front for the NOW that appeals to conservative "Security Moms". Match.com and Yahoo and MySpace are actually working for total Internet regulation because they don't want clients to be anonymous and they want small dating sites/forums dead.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page March 30, 2017, 02:11:50 PM

MKPortal ©2003-2006 mkportal.it