When Hillary Clinton’s friends in the US media decided to help John McCain grandstand about Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, I knew that they were making a play to help blackmail Barack Obama into giving the VP slot to Hillary’s feminist lapdog, Joe Biden. Until the Georgia incident, Obama’s camp seemed to be hostile to what I often heard Obama supporters refer to as the “bitter old Baby Boomer feminists”.

After ultra-left-wing Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash in 2002, the K Street Feminists in Washington snared Joe Biden to be their gofor boy and he has definitely NOT disappointed them. The Clintonista victim feminists can now be counted on to vote Obama-Biden in November.

Over this weekend, a lot of American men have been crying foul about how Joe Biden is the father of the outrageously anti-male Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA, the very name of which violates the 14th Amendment, has basically made heterosexual marriage a risky option for American males. It definitely violates the US Constitution in that domestic violence (not to mention rape and stalking) are not federal issues but states rights issues. More to the point: the new, updated law forces judges to prefer the word of a woman over a man and to let any woman living with a man simply cry “abuse” in order to get free rent and some of the man’s assets while he sits in jail.

Another anti-male law that Joe Biden championed and got passed can be a lot worse than VAWA after it metasticizes into newer forms. The dishonestly-named International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) states that the US federal government can set conditions on how men and women say hello to each other. Its present form, which will need to be approved by the Supreme Court before it can metasticize, states that a dating website or agency, that primarily introduces Americans to foreigners, must conduct a background check on the American and then force the foreigner to sign in writing that she read the completed form of any given specific US citizen and approved of communication…even though the foreigner had already stated a desire to come into chat or email contact with anyone at all and even for her contact information (like a secondary email address or cell phone number) to be broadcast far and wide to anyone and everyone from every country on Earth (it is a human right to let someone broadcast their contact info).

IMBRA is like, after you get carded at the entrance to a bar, the bartender restrains you from talking to any other person in that bar until after the other person reads and signs your background check.

Over the past 1.5 years that IMBRA has been in effect (it was under a restraining order for one year before that), I have noticed that no American citizen (no male with a pair of gonads) wants to take the time and effort to challenge IMBRA in court. I have learned that the reason for this lack of fighting spirit is because most Americans who date foreigners via agencies…now do so entirely online, mostly dating foreigners who have daily access to email and also mostly dating foreigners who speak English. Since clicking on a button legally constitutes “signing an approval form”, IMBRA has had no “seeming” effect in stopping totally wired Americans from quickly coming into contact with whomever they initiate contact with who also has daily access to the Internet.

Because of the way American males now expect to do most of their dating via email, and the fact that IMBRA barely hinders this mode of dating, the principle of the feminists winning control over our social lives seems to have gone unnoticed.

What so many Americans don’t know (and dating site owners can back me up on this) is that tens of thousands of foreigners who want to meet Americans do NOT have email or at least do NOT have daily or even frequent access to email. These foreigners, mostly women, have either had their profiles deleted or ignored by webmasters in rhe past 1.5 years since IMBRA was upheld at the district level, or their profiles remain front and center on dating sites but no American ever seems to notice that no response ever comes from that profile (the foreigner doesn’t check email but is hoping that an American might call her on her phone or send a telegram or snail mail…which never happens because IMBRA would not allow such forms of initial contact anymore).

Let me go over three scenarios that graphicly show how insane this IMBRA law is and how it can brutally effect all of our lives in the United States if it is upheld by the Supreme Court and allowed to metasticize into domestic feminist laws that regulate all contact between men and women:

First, let’s assume that many American men would not mind too much if a dating website conducted sex offender checks on them before they could be members of the site. This is a huge assumption because conducting such checks necessitates the man losing anonymity which has been a sacred right for those who want to talk to others in every country on Earth for most of the past 6000 years (not even the most totalitarian governments ever required its citizens to refrain from talking with each other before their identities were clarified to each other). 

After being sex offender checked once, a man could then be able to send a message or otherwise intitiate contact with any woman on the dating site (in other cultures women often prefer being initially phoned or telegrammed by men because the women do not feel it is appropriate for them to constantly log onto a site to read web messages).

Regardless of how OK an American would be with having been background checked to be able to belong to a dating site, what every American should mind would be the clause in IMBRA that forces foreign women to “sign in writing” that they read a man’s background. Again…this would be like a bartender forcing every man in the bar to refrain from speaking with anyone woman present until after the woman reads and signs a lot of inappropriate personal history.

Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if the document that a woman has to sign just states what the man’s favorite color is: the logistical nightmare of getting each woman to sign will lead to serious violations of the Right to Assemble as I will now show via three realistic scenarios A and B and C:

 A)

1)      I am in Moscow on a Saturday morning with a flight back to Boston the next day. Someone I had flown to meet that week turned out not to be the love of my life.

2)      Because it is 20 below Celsius outside, I go online and find someone else in Moscow and write to her. This woman had given her phone number to the agency with the hope that this information would be given out to American men. But the online agency cannot give me her phone number or forward an email from me until after the woman reads her email and “signs” the background check that the US government demands before allowing the woman to communicate with the American citizen.

3)      If the woman has no email (dating sites have left such profiles up as filler) the woman will never see an IMBRA notification to approve and the man will never get her phone number.

4)      If the woman will only read her email when she gets to work on Monday, she will approve of contact but the man will be home in Boston, possibly forever

5)      In Russian culture, unlike US culture, the woman probably would have met the man Saturday night if she had become aware of his interest Saturday morning.

6)      Remember that it was her wish that her phone number be broadcast to anyone who might be interested.

7)      Thus the logistics of the “written approval clause” has violated the US Right to Assemble as well as the UN Charter of Human Rights.

 B) 

1)      I am in Moscow and popped into a dating agency on a Friday evening at 4:30PM after business meetings took most of the working day. I plan to fly home to Boston on Sunday.

2)      Someone wonderful catches my eye and the agency employees immediately phone her and tell her VERBALLY that my IMBRA check was fine. She wants to meet me.

3)      The employees tell the woman that she must rush to the agency by 5PM close of business to sign the affidavit that she read the IMBRA check.

4)      The woman says she cannot make it by 5PM but could meet me at 6PM at the Pushkin Café (Moscow’s best meeting place).

5)      The agency either tells us both that the meeting will NOT take place because of IMBRA or the agency fudges and lets the two of us meet.  Obviously, the employees will have better things to do than show up at the Pushkin Café at 6PM with the documents to sign.

6)      Alternatively the woman rushes to the agency but arrives only at 5:15PM when the employees are gone…but the American man is waiting outside the locked office doors to meet her and they both happily go on their date.

 C)

1) I have plenty of time to spend in Moscow when an agency makes an appointment for 9AM the next morning for a woman to sign IMBRA documents and meet me.

2) The agency employee is late coming to work the next day, however, and the woman and I had arrived on-time and started talking outside the locked agency doors.

3) As the woman and I leave the building to start a nice date, the agency employee sees us and screams “You are not allowed to talk with each other yet!”

4) The woman and I laugh as we keep going on our way. What is the employee going to do, call the Moscow police and say we violated a US law?

You can see how the above scenarios outline the circumstances under which many agencies do NOT comply with IMBRA because it would be simply too ridiculous to do so. In B and C, the woman’s expressed desire to be with someone particular is blocked or attempted to be blocked by the US Nanny State. In A, the woman’s previously stated desire for her information to be given out is blocked by US Government mandate and, after she corresponds with the man who is home in Boston, she can be very angry that her wish had not been granted on Saturday when the man was still in her home city. 

These scenarios bring to mind the book “1984” where the government actively hampered interpersonal relationships. The climax of that book was when something the protagonist Winston said in private was “disclosed” to his girlfriend Julia by the government (named Big Brother) and their relationship was destroyed. That book was written anonymously, by the way. Few know that Eric Blair wrote it because his fake screen-name was “George Orwell.”

The bottom line is that, no matter how convenient Email is for dating and now matter what “safety” advantages anonymous webmail gives to paranoid women, Americans cannot take it upon  themselves to ban foreigners and Americans alike from using old technology like the telephone, the telegraph (still active in Russia) and snail mail to BEGIN contacting someone else.

The only way Joe Biden’s IMBRA law could be arguably fixed to not entirely violate the 1st Amendment Right to Assemble, is for the initial contact between Americans and foreigners to NOT be conditional on whether the foreigner had signed in writing that she read someone’s background check.

But if you do not see the other ways that Joe Biden’s Nanny State law violates everything you may have held sacred since you were born…God help you.

An American citizen plaintiff is still needed to do a challenge. I know that $8000 can be raised fairly quickly for this. It would be great for a publicized challenge to occur while Biden campaigned this fall. We could maybe get Biden on the witness stand.

Stumble It!

Rate this post:

(6 votes, average: 3 out of 5)

 Loading ...