|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:52 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
A quick check of the Senate Judiciary Committee's web site only shows that the Robert's hearings have been postponed.
There is as yet no committee schedule for the rest of the week of Sept. 6, 2005, and no mention of S. 1197.
So, could some one with Congressional bill expertise, please explain --
What happens if the House bill H.R. 3402 with the "gender-neutral" language passes, and the Senate bill S. 1197 without that language also passes?
I thought that bills originate in the House, then move onto the Senate.
Is the Senate about to review the House 3402 bill, with the gender-neutral language?
What process comes into play with two different bills, and who decides which bill becomes law?
http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:41 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
You can look up about two dozen representative's statements endorsing VAWA '05 transcribed into the permanent Congressional Record on the thomas.gov website.
Go to thomas.gov, click on Congressional Record for 109th Congress, and search on word phrase "violence against women act."
Among what you'll read are statements by the following feminist reps in Congress (note the mantra-like use of hysterical statistics that have long been discounted as fraudulent...) ---
"Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been a great success. It has provided over $5.5 billion in Federal funding to improve our criminal and community responses to domestic violence . But the statistics remain alarming. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime... "
----
"Around the world, at least one woman in every three has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. Women have the right to feel safe in their own homes and on the streets, and law enforcement and health officials must be equipped to deal with the special needs of these tragic situations."
---
"The bill includes language that would help communities establish specialized domestic violence courts in order to speed up the processing time of domestic violence cases. Also, the bill includes a provision that would help educate minority and immigrant communities on how to prevent domestic violence and provide services available to those victims.
Our efforts to educate the public about domestic violence must directly address factors like cultural differences, linguistic differences and immigration issues.
It is my hope that the reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act is comprehensive and meets the needs of all women."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 10:24 PM September 8th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I recently received from my US House rep a written reply to my message in which I had urged him to work to change VAWA so that it does not discriminate against males. His letter was disappointing but not surprising.
He said he believes that violence against women is a serious problem that deserves the attention of Congress. He stated that according to the Dept of Justice as many as 20 percent of all nonfatal violent crimes experienced by women are related to DV. He went on to state that although DV is not exclusive to women, statistics from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control show that the vast majority of victims of DV and sexual assault are female. In 2000, for example, 1,247 women were murdered by an intimate partner -- more than three times the number of men who were killed.
His reasoning seems to be the standard argument that males are a very small minority of victims and therefore don't justify much attention. However, he does state in his letter that we must work to end all intimate partner violence, regardless of whether the victims are male or female. And he believes that VAWA is critically important to helping victims rebuild their lives. It's the usual situation in which the politician buys in to the feminist lies and bogus thinking -- ignore male victims and female perpetrators, protect women more than men, and always shield women from responsibility (no matter what negative effect it has on women, men, children and families).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 PM September 9th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Way back in the Bolshevik era of the Russian Revolution, this was called "free speech."
Don't think for a minute that 1919 is not relevant to what men face today from a similar feminist totalitarianism...
We have such short memories.
Mostly because people who die from tyranny don't get to continue to post......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 02:40 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I just sent my two US Senators VAWA faxes.
Remember that there are TWO places you should send your faxes to. The first is to their offices in Washington but also don't forget to fax their home state congressional offices. They may get the fax sent to their home office before they get the one in Washington. Either way more people, staffers etc. will read your faxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The membership of the Senate Judiciary Committee is as follows, and their contact information is available at the link posted below.
Arlen Specter - CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. Hatch -UTAH
Patrick J. Leahy - RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley -IOWA
Edward M. Kennedy -MASSACHUSETTS
Jon Kyl -ARIZONA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. -DELAWARE
Mike DeWine -OHIO
Herbert Kohl - WISCONSIN
Jeff Sessions -ALABAMA
Dianne Feinstein - CALIFORNIA
Lindsey Graham - SOUTH CAROLINA
Russell D. Feingold - WISCONSIN
John Cornyn -TEXAS
Charles E. Schumer - NEW YORK
Sam Brownback - KANSAS
Richard J. Durbin - ILLINOIS
Tom Coburn - OKLAHOMA
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I nailed Senator Feinstein for specifically excluding opposing testimony and concerns as expressed by the MRA's.
She obviously hates MRA's and avoids the issue of why there is a complete lack of democracy during the VAWA hearings.
Here is her hateful reply:
Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:
Thank you for writing me regarding the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). I appreciate your thoughts on this important topic and welcome the opportunity to respond.
I have long been concerned about problem of
domestic violence, and have worked hard with others to pass important legislation, such as the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), the most comprehensive bill Congress has ever passed on this topic, to deal with this corrosive problem. In 2000, VAWA was set to expire. Congress needed to pass legislation to re-authorize VAWA's major programs, and improve on
the original legislation. Congress did pass this legislation, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000" (VAWA 2000), which authorized the appropriation of a total of $3.2 billion over the following 5 years.
VAWA authorizes many important programs to prevent violence against women, providing money for law enforcement and prosecution, battered women's shelters and services, and the national violence hotline.
VAWA has been particularly important to California, where its funds have been used to train hundreds of police officers, prosecutors and judges, provide California law enforcement with better evidence gathering and information sharing equipment, and hire victims advocates and counselors in scores of California
cities. VAWA money has also helped furnish an array of specific services to California women and children: from 24-hour hotlines to emergency transportation to medical services.
I will certainly keep your comments in mind
during any effort to reauthorize VAWA in the 109th
Congress. Also, please know that I will continue to fight for domestic violence programs to be fully funded through the annual appropriations process.
Again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to contact me regarding matters that are important to you. Should you have any further comments or questions regarding this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Obviously, Senator Feinstein is quite corrupt and has no loyalty to families in America. She hates men and has every intention to follow the radical feminist agenda of male destruction.
Notice how Senator Feinstein specifically addresses women’s needs only and the implied denunciation of men’s needs.
And these retards wonder why the readiness of America is compromised when there is a real disaster like Katrina....
Guess what folks. It takes MEN to respond to a major disaster like Katrina. Women cannot do it and that is proven by the incompetent leadership of the female governor of Illinois.
Gees....it is going to get worse.
A feminized America means an America in control of the Marxist-Feminists. That means a less ready state because this socialist has loyalties to other powers.
Get ready for more disasters and incompetent responses as males get jailed in record numbers for pathetic reasons and false allegations when VAWA 2005 passes.
Now wonder why a major part of the New Orleans police for turned and ran like a bunch of pussy whipped men. What pussies!!! Wonder how many of the deserters were women?!?!?!
AU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:30 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I got the same response from Feinstein and nothing from Boxer. California men need to get far more active protesting the anti-male prejudice going on in this state. VAWA is just one huge piece of the overall man-hating picture.
I'll be getting my Faxes out to them tomorrow. Things came up today. I'm documenting the letters/Faxes I send to them, and their responses. I think Feinstein is coming up for election next year, and in liberal, gender feninist California she really doesn't even have to care about the rights of men. All the same, she deserves to have her anti-male, anti- equal human rights record publicized.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:02 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:13 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as a citizen of the Land of Lincoln,
I can attest that Illinois' Governor Rod Blagojevich is allegedly a man.
(I think the poster above meant to type Louisiana...)
Although Blogo's politics are thoroughly feminist, and Illinois' radical male-bashing State's Attorney, Lisa Madigan, does a very fine Andrea Dworkin impression on camera and off.
So, Illinois must at least be in the running with California for the distinction of "least man-friendly" state!
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:16 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I just finished sending out Faxes to both California Senators (Feinstein and Boxer), and all but one of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. Sen. Leahy's office would not give out his Fax#.
If you can send only one letter to a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (after 1st sending Faxes to your own State Senators) I would send it to Sen. Feinstein.
Here is the content of my fax:
Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
In July, the House Judiciary Committee revised the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to make it gender-neutral. Now I am asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to do what the House has done:
1. Add language to VAWA to allow programs that focus on serving male victims to become eligible for funding,
2. Eliminate language that implies that only women suffer from domestic violence.
Please change VAWA so that it no longer discriminates against men.
Sincerely, Ray XXXXXXXXXXX
Here is a list of all the names, addresses and Fax#'s of the Senate Judiciary Committee Members. I Faxed all of them except Sen Lehay, whose office would not give out a Fax# so I have yet to email him. I sent all of my Faxes on a Samsung SF 5100, which I bought a couple of years ago for around $200.00 new. It gives me a nice confirming copy that the Fax went through, and it is a world cheaper than sending Faxes at Kinkos.
Sincerely, Ray
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS LIST:
Senator Sam Brownback
303 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 228-1265
Senator Tom Coburn, M.D.
172 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202-224-6008
Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202-228-2856
Senator Mike DeWine
140 Russell Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Senator Lindsey Graham
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 224-3808
Senator Charles E. Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-1501
Fax# 202-224-6020
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
104 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 224-6331
Senator Jon Kyl
730 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 224-2207
Senator Jeff Sessions
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0104
Fax (202) 224-3149
Senator Arlen Specter
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-1229
Senator Joseph R. Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 224-0139
Senator Dick Durbin
332 Dirksen Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Fax (202) 228-0400
Senator Russell D. Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Fax: (202) 224-2725
Senator Diane Feinstein
Hart Office Building
Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 228-3954
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
317 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 224-2417
Senator Herb Kohl
330 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 224-9787
Senator Patrick J. Lehay
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
***Sen. Lehay’s office won’t give out his fax #. They said to email him at senator_leahy.senate.gov or go to his web site and use the email form.
Senator Charles E. Schumer
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202-228-3027
California Senators:
Barbara Boxer
330 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 224-9787
Senator Diane Feinstein
Hart Office Building
Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fax: (202) 228-3954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:12 PM September 8th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I emailed all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, regarding VAWA. Most of the Senators had a field hat had to be filled to send the email and it was entitled "topic or issue." I noticed 4 or 5 of the Senators had on their list "Women's Issues," but no "Men's," or "Children's Issues;" no "Blacks," or "Hispanics," or "Asian people's issues."
It is no wonder we men are having so many difficulties in our lives, when the most pampered and privileged group of people in the history of the world have such high level people giving them so much exclusive and expensive attention.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM September 10th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Some as yet poorly defined action happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee about S. 1197, the VAWA 2005 bill.
The newest posting states --
----
S. 1197
Latest Major Action: 9/8/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
----
I have no clue what this actually means, but it sounds like the gender-neutral language included in the House bill (H.R. 3402) may have been amended to the Senate version.
Anybody know?
Go to thomas.loc.gov and enter S. 1197, then click on “Bill Summary and Status File.”
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
We have just learned that the Senate Judiciary Committee has postponed the hearings on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Which means the Judiciary Committee is likely to do its final review on VAWA this week.