When an American citizen finally challenges IMBRA, it is going to be a turkey shoot.

There is nothing logical or fair about the law.

I am still looking for a millionaire to fund http://www.online-dating-rights.com and/or an American citizen to challenge the law in federal court.

It would not take much time to do this. One can file on one’s lunch hour if one lives in a city with a federal courthouse if one is doing it pro se, meaning without a lawyer (we don’t have the money to afford a lawyer but there are several reasons why lawyers might help one lose a case, with the need to be politically correct a big reason).

Then there will be a trial 2 weeks later which would last 2 or 3 days at the most. Others would do the organizing of the expert witnesses, etc.

After that….well….it would probably be best to file a brief once per month. Others can write the brief for you..,.but the pro se plaintiff would, of course, have to actually file it, etc.

I would say that the same applies psychologically as much as militarily.

Which is why I would not give Jabbering Stooge any space to comment.

I’ve looked at his/her blog and he/she has nothing of interest to say. His/her blog is just full of sneering/snide assertions backed up by nothing. He/she seems like precious little more than a big mouth with an empty head.

Why give him/her the space?

How could wanting a men’s rights movement financed be misogynistic?

How could wanting foreign women to be treated as equals by the feminists…somehow seen as wanting them not to be treated as human beings?

Foreign women have the right to decide their own level of security. If a woman wants her new Yahoo email address broadcast to the world, that is her right.

The US Congress and the feminists do NOT have a right to tell a foreign woman that she cannot contact an American without first signing his background check.

In addition, you cannot imply that American women are superior to foreign women which is exactly what you are saying when you say that men are losers for dating them:

Here is a video of some foreign women remarking about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihW4P8Bcrxc

It is not treating foreign women as “human beings” if you take away their rights to broadcast their anonymous email addresses and/or cell phone numbers or postal addresses to the world at large.

No American woman has to be protected by federal law in terms of having to sign her personal approval for every man who wants to contact her.

I do not think you understand the IMBRA law Jabbering Stooge. I really don’t.

Go to http://www.veteransabroad.com and http://www.onlinedatingrights.com and read the libraries.

Here is a feminist opinion that says the law goes too far:

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=36775

The Fatherhood Movement might fight and fight and then be given a few concessions, while the noose of misandry tightens around all of or necks.

They can murder us and go scott free after a month in jail, they can put up billboards in Virginia with the blessing of manginas like John Walsh of “America’s Most Wanted” which depict a man holding hands with a child and saying “Stop It Now”, they can pass laws stating that men MUST have background checks before they are allowed to say hello to women online (IMBRA).

The Republicans (evangelists) are behind this even more than the Democrats (feminists). Meanwhile, pathetic cowards like Ron Paul ignore their chance to fill in the breach.

In the USA, there is an unholy alliance between Dems and Bush Republicans that cannot be broken via “negotiation” at a low level between local father’s rights groups and state legislatures.

Giuliani is showing signs that he is coming under their influence and not ours.

Meanwhile, Marc Rudov of http://www.thenononsenseman.com is the only American man who is regularly getting on national TV (CNN and Fox News) and telling it like it really is (”Ban alimony” was the message 3 days ago on Fox News and “It is unconstittutional to prejudge the subset of males” was the message on CNN 2 days ago).

We need to think big. We need multimillionaires. We need the patriarchy and the “old boys network” to wake up and/or spring back to life.

If the MRM movement remains only at the level of the recent “Fathers 4 Justice” film with the British man crying on camera about joyous it was to have a weekend with his kids…the enemy is going to throw a few concessions, but we are not going to get any respect overall.

1. This conversation has enlightened me about MND and Mike LaSalle, who I plan to contact.

2. I am the admin of http://www.onlinedatingrights.com. This website is growing in influence as we try to dismantle the most recent overreaching of kneejerk feminsts: IMBRA, a law that requires criminal background checks of American men before they merely send an email to a foreign woman for any reason.

3. We have been contacted by two men willing to file suit to bring down this law as it is a gross violation of the US Constitution. We have interviewed law firms for a battle that will surely go to the US Supreme Court.

4. We have approached the ACLU and naturally they will not consider helping us because the board of directors of the ACLU are largely kneejerk feminists. Meanwhile, we are evaluating our budget needs for the lawsuit of the century and soon will be soliticing funds for it. If any of you want to contact me to discuss an offer to support this cause, please go to the website and write me or write to onlinedatingrights (yahoo address).

5. Another goal of ours is to create a 501c3 for educational purposes and to provide accurate information to journalists, lawmakers and the public about international dating and marriage, to combat the lies based on anecdotes passed around by the kneejerk feminists who have absolutely no support from social scientists who have studied these relationships. (The anthropologist studies all support us!) Those interested in this cause should contact me, too.

Lastly, I have had 20 years of experience in law, politics and media so I have some ideas how to conduct this battle, which I do entirely as a volunteer as apparently does Mike LaSalle. I am married to a chemiical engineer and international energy consultant from Central Asia who is ten years my junior. She thinks that American kneejerk feminists are nuts.

Nothing said at feministing makes sense because it is an echo chamber where Jessica deletes the accounts of dissenters.

Feminists do control both political parties in the US. Example: Karen Czarnecki of the Labor Dept may pretend to hate feminists…but she is one all the same. She thinks that men need to be background checked just to say hello to women onlne. Same is true of the president of the supposedly anti-feminist Independent Womens Forum, Michelle Bernard. She thinks “it is frightening what the potential for abuse is when men meet women online”.

Larry Craig wanted to keep his head low because of his bathroom fetish. As a result, we did not have a Republican maverick in his office, but someone who would do as he was told by others and not rock any boat.

The Republican Party is filled with Larry Craigs…hypocrites who know they cannot live up to the asexual ideal the Heritage Foundation pushes…so they are all trying to keep their head low.

It is interesting to wake up and suddenly find oneself famous.

I am traveling for the next month and don’t have the time to defend myself over at Feministing.

Some other clear-thinking person, please sign on to Feministing and explain to the children over there what I was talking about.

1) It never occured to me that the “hit by a truck” line was supposed to constitute a Mafia style threat.

2) They are saying that our fighting for the right not to have background checks in order to date online…constitutes “fighting for the right to harrass women online”.

THAT IS A NEW ONE. Someone please enlighten them by pointing to http://www.online-dating-rights.com.

I just wish I had more time to respond.

Readers…if you have a half hour…spread this around the blogosphere some more.

My original article will be appearing on 5 other blogs in the next few days.

Here is the Feministing article about me:

http://feministing.com/archives/007670.html

Let Jessica know that I would like to comment there but I do not have time.

But I would like to debate Jessica publicly at a European university or via an American TV or radio station.

This is precious… they think we’re “righter” than WND because stand we have the temerity to stand for equal rights for men…. Ah, the Feminist Left: Where would we get our laughs without them? ROTFLOL!!!

Ned Holstein is right–and has been for a while. We have to think of our movement as like the Sierra Club. Fund-raising really matters. Holstein’s Belefonte story rings true.

I think some instruction in the basics of fund-raising makes sense. Perhaps a by-invitation retreat and educational session twice a year with the whole subject being fund-raising. There’s a lot to fund-raising. Even the Dummies book has dozens of things the layman doesn’t think of. Maybe the first thing to do is have groups and individuals and some generous donors throw cash in the pot for a twice-a-year Fund-Raising “college.” It would be a way of building relationships across the country as well.

I would add Ray Blomhorst and his chaps in California, not only for the infrastructure they have put in place (offices for several groups, the CRISPE motor-home cum travelling roadshow, regular roadside protests which anyone can emulate and which are essential).

Also Ross Mitchell in Australia with his Dads on the Air Radio programme and forum.

In the UK, Angry Harry who has been a tower of strength operating on a shoestring, encouraging the flow of information (if ever thare was a UK one man band equivalent to MND, it would be Harry).

And the special talents for being noticed by the F4J leaders.

Not only money is needed (and is it ever needed) but leadership and mentoring is needed too. I have had several digs at Sir Paul MacCartney for his failure to see where his wealth could be directed. Maybe a successful businessman would have better luck at getting his attention. Bob Geldorf and Pierce Brosnan have also expressed interest in men’s issues. They need someone serious to whom they can attach their efforts. Personal expsoure is not an essential however. It can be useful to have ‘Celebrity’ fronting a cause, but frankly, a well heeled celebrity behind the scenes is better. There is help and direction needed by that actor chap, Baldwin, who had the publicised spat on the phone with his daughter recently who is writing a book. Who is influencing him? Guiding him?

We are constantly assailed by white-ants like WLS (and other mealy mouthed nutters). By golly, Mike has a wealth of patience and manages to keep them in the tent providing roadblock alerts if nothing else. Its an issue in any organisation or gathering.

But maybe some additional effort could also be directed at encouraging the few women who see the light. I know who I would prefer in the tent if it were a choice between Teri and The Biscuit Queen and WLS. For this MRM to succeed at reforming the truckloads of legislation aimed at destroying the family, men, children’s hope for a future, our society, we NEED women on board.

A note on discourse. You raised the bar, business and organisation-wise, Jim. Our discourse, even here on MND, is riven with anger and sneer. Anger is a needed emotional driver and motivator but cannot be allowed to hold the centre. It must be a resource to be deployed, rather than and ‘end’. The sneers must be met with quick rebuff. Our disagreements and critiques must become more mature. Our focus must become more objective-directed.

In some parts of the MRM this could be focussed on the legislature (as much of this discussion has tended) and lobbying. But for that to have any effect there needs to be a substantial increase in public awareness of the evil in our society. It may be the American Way to go to one’s Rep of Congressman. In other parts of the world, politics is different.

The methods used by Glenn Sacks in the past few years – mass emails to specific targets – needs to be refined and turned into a weapon of substance. The organisation for that needs to be refined too. The ‘memberships’ of all MRA and MRM groups should have a common obligation – to email on requirement. RADAR has made some sound efforts to encourage emailing but what is needed is for ’subscribers’ and ‘members’ to undertake, as part of their involvement, emailing suggested texts to suggested addresses on specified topics.

There are far too many passengers in the MRM who read but don’t DO anything. Because they are rarely asked to do anything. No one is leading.

Jim, I hope to see more of your words on MND.

I would like to thank everyone for the words of support. I have been doing fundraising about as long as I have been in the movement. While some monies have been raised for targeted things, the tonnage needed is simply not there. The F&F $300k budget is awesome for this movement. It is but a drop in the bucket compared to what feminist organizations, who are attached to United Way and who get millions in corporate funding in addition to having perches within corporations to expound their agenda on domestic violence and “diversity”, and who are often additionally left very large sums of money in estates.

We are faced with the same problems all conservative orgs face (liberals do not give money to men’s or marriage-based groups because feminism is part of liberalism). There are many thousands of small conservative organizations consisting of one or two people in a family-run organization targeting one special interest. Conservatives grassroots people rarely organize to form larger organizations committed to team effort to achieve collective goals. I believe these modi operandi (proper latin declension) are largely a function of the normal conservative instinct.

Folks must recognize that size and funding matter. No organization can achieve national impact without significant resources. Those who truly wish to reverse the trend of creeping liberalism, and to essentially prevent the collapse of this country, should make substantial donations to talented, professional organizations devoted towards ending the war on marriage.

Philantrhopists do not need to wait until death to do this. Given the urgency of America’s socioeconomic predicament, waiting is not a good idea. Most wealthy individuals have family trusts which can establish a permanent sub-trust providing dividend income or cash trust distributions. I believe most individuals would opt for the former, because it keeps the trust intact, provides major long-term sustenace, and permits requiring the recipient organization to meet certain minimal requirements in order to remain eligible for the interest distributions.

Here is a challenge to those with substantial financial means. We have the policy ideas to put America back on track. If you are sick and tired of getting nothing for your philanthropic donations; if you are sick and tired of making contributions to political candidates who always end up doing the wrong things, then help us accomplish these changes.

Some of us in this movement are connected in very high places now. We are being heard. But we need more mass. We need a major policy-based organization that can focus the issues, develop and focus the scientific papers, write the pro-forma code, and organize the entire grassroots base to put it over the top. I have the people in place to accomplish this task. I need just one major philanthropist to step up to the plate in founding this organization — which will be a full-blown nonprofit and foundation. I can be contacted at drusher@swbell.net