Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.

Expand Messages
  • Bob Allen
    You are doubly wrong, E.  The VAWA law has a sunset clause that made it law for only 5 years.  It expires every 5  years unless it is passed again.  
    Message 1 of 12 , May 16, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      You are doubly wrong, E.  The VAWA law has a "sunset" clause that made it law for only 5 years.  It expires every 5  years unless it is passed again.   Its been extended 3 times if I remember right.  It is being considered now because its about to expire, go away, end, stop, sunset.  If Congress does nothing it will go away.
       
      No man who cares about families or children or men would support VAWA.  Its the worst anti-men hate law ever enacted by Congress.  Every time it expires all the fraud men's advocates rush to support its renewal and encourage men to support it.   Congress ends up thinking that men support VAWA because they get the femiNazi females and the sick mangina men asking for renewal. 
       
      Any man who is a man would call or write to his Congressman and demand that it be ended, shelved, not passed, not renewed, lost in committee, not voted on.   Some men finally need to tell Congress that men are not fond of anti-men hate as law. 
       
      Supporters of VAWA renewal are not men who can be trusted in the MRA community, or anywhere that men gather. They are mangina lackeys of the feminocracy who pretend to be men.
       
      Blessings
      Bob
       
       
       
       
      Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


      [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

      From: E <netethics07@...>
      To: aum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:26 PM
      Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.

       
      VAWA, as any federal law, does not "expire".  If not signed into law due to a stalemate, the Congressional Appropriations committee will continue paying the funds to the DV industry, and all will be as it has been in the last few years. Except, not a single congressman protested against VAWA.  "Re-authorization" only means tailoring it to the current political demands, it does not mean an "expiration."

      The only way to rid the world of this unconstitutional law is to REPEAL it.  Apparently, your  calls dd not convince a single Senator or Congressman to sponsor a bill to repeal VAWA.  So, the only two options the House of Representatives will discuss tomorrow are the two versions -- one Republican and one-- democrat.

      You are against both (even though you know that ONE shall become law, and ONE is far worse than the current VAWA, and far worse than the version, sponsored by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL). 
       
      You want to pretend to be a purist, a martyr, and you want other men to accept their martyrdom by choosing the "option" which does not exist, though they don't seem to give a damn about anything, until they become a victim.

      I want them to survive, to live another day, and to be able to fight against VAWA tomorrow.

      I was brought up on the military tradition of strategy and tactics and maneuver,  which would let me keep my men alive today and fighting hard tomorrow. You want them dead now, but "proud." 






      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen <bobx23456@...> wrote:
      >
      > This happens every time the VAWA expires.   All the faux men rush out and support its renewal.   Hate doesn't have to be repealed.  It only needs to be not passed again.  But all the false men rush to Congress and onto Men's forums insisting that "Men" support VAWA.   Congress gets thousands of phone calls from manginas and pussy boys pretending to be men who support VAWA.   Idiots in Congress think men support their anti-men hate legislation.  Women want it.  "Men" support it.  So it passes.  
      >  
      > Any pansy arse traitor who supports renewal of the worst anti-men, anti-family hate law ever enacted should turn in his man badge, or have it removed from him by every man who calls himself a man, by every man who cares about children and families, by every man who cares about men.   No real man would ever support such vile anti-men hate for any legitimate reason.  He just wouldn't. 
      >  
      > I have already contacted my Congresscunt and demanded that it be shelved.   Every decent man would do the same.
      >  
      > Blessings
      > Bob
      >  
      >  
      >
      > Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
      >
      >
      > [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
      >
      > From: E netethics07@...
      > >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
      > >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29 AM
      > >Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
      > >
      > >
      > > 
      > >While my position has always been that VAWA is unconstitutional, fascist "law", its "new and improved" version supported by the DV colaitions is simply outrageously Nazi. 
      > >
      > >
      > >Whether I like it or not, VAWA will be made into law. Politically, there were (and are) just three choices:
      > >
      > >
      > >1) An instant bi-partisan deal, always done in a matter of hours on all previous occasions. -- Din't happen this time, thanks to opposition by some men's group, and above all -- due to the outrageous femi-Nazi provisions in the Dem version, designed to insult intelligence and provoke opposition by Republicans. The obvious Political Stratagem was to accuse them of a "War on Women."  The back-and-forth discussions in Congress have been going on for 5 months., which is unprecedented!  They are about to end this week with just one of two outcomes:
      > >
      > >
      > >2) Dem version, as per above
      > >3) Rep version, HR-4970.
      > >
      > >
      > >There is no choice for VAWA being repealed.  Republican congressmen are ready to give-in.  Taking a stance of "NO to VAWA, Period" is strictly Utopian at this time. I hope the time will come for it, but it is not today.
      > >
      > >
      > >While it is back to the old unpalatable choice of the lesser of 2 evils, I am not going to bite my nose in spite of my face (and ask men to do the same)  by assuming an impracticable absolutist position. The only result of it is going to be more men, stripped off all of their property and jailed.  
      > >
      > >
      > >I make a pragmatic choice by allowing myself to be convinced by people who had spent much more time on negotiating these 2 bills, than anyone else ever did, and who are absolutely beyond any suspicion that they are somehow  selling men's interests down the river. 
      > >
      > >
      > >The blame for having no choice but to adopt one or the other version of VAWA is partly on all men, by being unable to organize into a cohesive, large and articulate movement.  
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen bobx23456@ wrote:
      > >>
      > >> Once again, if MEN are supporting VAWA we are FOOLS.    This VAWA, or "that" VAWA is a horror show for men.  The ONLY stand MEN should take is to OPPOSE VAWA.  Its time for that obscenity to expire.
      > >> Bob
      > >>  
      > >>  
      > >>  
      > >>
      > >> Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
      > >>
      > >> From: E netethics07@
      > >> >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
      > >> >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36 PM
      > >> >Subject: [AUM] STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> > 
      > >> >Please, call, FAX, or e-mail as many Congressmen as possible on Tuesday and Wednesday. Say just one thing:  
      > >> > I ASK YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON HR-4970. 
      > >> > 
      > >> >That is all.The phone numbers are at the bottom. 
      > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >> >Here's why: "the other" VAWA contains huge incentives for women to lie and connive, such as giving a woman entitlement to a subsidized housing if she ever in her life filed a DV report, no statute of limitations. My girfriend read the relevant portion of the text tonight and demanded I give her a shiner instead of her bying a retirement property. Just a bit of black humor here, but I know a few broads who wouldn't hesitate to give themselves a shiner, so as not to miss an opportunity of a lifetime.
      > >> > 
      > >> > 
      > >> >There is much more provisions enabling outright fraud and discrimination against men than can be covered in an e-mail, including no due process on campus for males when a female student files a sexual harassment or DV claim, government-paid lawyers and handsomly paid advocates coaching women to lie for fun and profit, instant legalization of illegal immigrants, and Indian tribal courts assuming jurisdiction over a non-tribal man and his property if a tribal woman files a DV complaint.
      > >> > 
      > >> >In sum total, the Dem version has turned VAWA into pure, unadulterated fascism, the American style -- paid for with the taxpayers' largess. So, no, we are not talking about you asking for a "fair" federal law. It is still the old unconstitutional VAWA, but HR-4970 is a huge step away from fascism, away from fraud, and towards accounatbility.
      > >> > 
      > >> >We are talking here about you preventing fascism, which shall otherwise be unleashed against you, your sons and neighbors, with tremendous vengeance. If you are a skeptic like me, read the bills and weep: amendments alone are on 197 pages. The text is about 700 pages.
      > >> >--------------------------------------------
      > >> > Alabama
      > >> >Martha Roby, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-2901
      > >> > 
      > >> >California
      > >> >Daniel Lungren, 3rd District
      > >> >202-225-5716
      > >> > 
      > >> >Jeff Denham, 19th District
      > >> >202-225-4540
      > >> > 
      > >> >Kevin McCarthy, 22nd District
      > >> >202-225-2915
      > >> > 
      > >> >Gary Miller, 42nd District
      > >> >202-225-3201
      > >> > 
      > >> >Mark Bono Mack, 45th District
      > >> >202-225-5330
      > >> > 
      > >> >John Campbell, 48th District
      > >> >202-225-5611
      > >> > 
      > >> >Darrell Issa, 49th District
      > >> >202-225-3906
      > >> > 
      > >> >Brian Billbray, 50th District
      > >> >202-225-0508
      > >> > 
      > >> >Colorado
      > >> >Scott Tipton, 3rd District
      > >> >202-225-4761
      > >> > 
      > >> >Mike Coffman, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-7882
      > >> > 
      > >> >Florida
      > >> >Steve Southerland, II, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-5235
      > >> > 
      > >> >Daniel Webster, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-2176
      > >> > 
      > >> >Vern Buchanan, 13th District
      > >> >202-225-5015
      > >> > 
      > >> >Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, 18th District
      > >> >202-225-3931
      > >> > 
      > >> >Mario Diaz-Balart, 21st District
      > >> >202-225-4211
      > >> > 
      > >> >Allen West, 22nd District
      > >> >202-225-3026
      > >> > 
      > >> >Sandy Adams, 24th District
      > >> >(Bill Author)
      > >> >202-225-2706
      > >> > 
      > >> >David Rivera, 25th District
      > >> >202-225-2778
      > >> > 
      > >> >Georgia
      > >> >Tom Price, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-4501
      > >> > 
      > >> >Illinois
      > >> >Robert Dold, 10th District
      > >> >202-225-4835
      > >> > 
      > >> >Judy Biggert, 13th District
      > >> >202-225-3515
      > >> > 
      > >> >Timothy Johnson, 15th District
      > >> >202-225-2371
      > >> > 
      > >> >Bobby Schilling, 17th District
      > >> >202-225-5905
      > >> > 
      > >> >Aaron Schock, 18th District
      > >> >202-225-6201
      > >> > 
      > >> >Kansas
      > >> >Lynn Jenkins, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-6601
      > >> > 
      > >> >Maryland
      > >> >Roscoe Bartlett, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-2721
      > >> > 
      > >> >Michigan
      > >> >Dan Benishek, 1st District
      > >> >202-225-4735
      > >> > 
      > >> >Candice Miller, 10th District
      > >> >202-225-2106
      > >> > 
      > >> >Minnesota
      > >> >Michele Bachmann, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-2331
      > >> > 
      > >> >Chip Cravaack, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-6211
      > >> > 
      > >> >Missouri
      > >> >Vicky Hartzler, 4th District
      > >> >202-225-2876
      > >> > 
      > >> >Jo Ann Emerson, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-4404
      > >> > 
      > >> >Nevada
      > >> >Mark Amodei, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-6155
      > >> > 
      > >> >Joe Heck, 3rd District
      > >> >202-225-3252
      > >> > 
      > >> >New Hampshire
      > >> >Charles Bass, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-5206
      > >> > 
      > >> >New Jersey
      > >> >Frank Lobiondo, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-6572
      > >> > 
      > >> >John Runyan, 3rd District
      > >> >202-225-4765
      > >> > 
      > >> >New York
      > >> >Robert Turner, 9th District
      > >> >202-225-6616
      > >> > 
      > >> >Michael Grimm, 13th District
      > >> >202-225-3371
      > >> > 
      > >> >Nan Hayworth, 19th District
      > >> >202-225-5441
      > >> > 
      > >> >Chris Gibson, 20th District
      > >> >202-225-5614
      > >> > 
      > >> >Ann Marie Burkle, 25th District
      > >> >202-225-3701
      > >> > 
      > >> >North Carolina
      > >> >Renee Ellmers, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-4531
      > >> > 
      > >> >Virginia Foxx, 5th District
      > >> >202-225-2071
      > >> > 
      > >> >Sue Myrick, 9th District
      > >> >202-225-1976
      > >> > 
      > >> >Ohio
      > >> >Jean Schmidt, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-3164
      > >> > 
      > >> >John Boehner, 8th District (Speaker)
      > >> >202-225-0600
      > >> > 
      > >> >Steven LaTourette, 14th District
      > >> >202-225-5731
      > >> > 
      > >> >Steve Stivers, 15th District
      > >> >202-225-2015
      > >> > 
      > >> >James Renacci, 16th District
      > >> >202-225-3876
      > >> > 
      > >> >Pennsylvania
      > >> >Jim Gerlack, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-4315
      > >> > 
      > >> >Patrick Meehan, 7th District
      > >> >202-225-2011
      > >> > 
      > >> >Michael Fitzpatrick, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-4276
      > >> > 
      > >> >Charlie Dent, 15th District
      > >> >202-225-6411
      > >> > 
      > >> >Tim Murphy, 18th District
      > >> >202-225-2301
      > >> > 
      > >> >Todd Platts, 19th District
      > >> >202-225-5836
      > >> > 
      > >> >South Dakota
      > >> >Kristi Noem
      > >> >202-225-2801
      > >> > 
      > >> >Tennessee
      > >> >Diane Black, 6th District
      > >> >202-225-4231
      > >> > 
      > >> >Marsha Blackburn, 7th District
      > >> >202-225-2811
      > >> > 
      > >> >Texas
      > >> >Ted Poe, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-6565
      > >> > 
      > >> >Jeb Hensarling, 5th District
      > >> >202-225-3484
      > >> > 
      > >> >Kay Granger, 12th District
      > >> >202-225-5071
      > >> > 
      > >> >Lamar Smith, 21st District (Judiciary Chairman)
      > >> >202-225-4236
      > >> > 
      > >> >Francisco Canseco, 23rd District
      > >> >202-225-4511
      > >> > 
      > >> >Virginia
      > >> >Eric Cantor, 7th District
      > >> >202-225-2815
      > >> > 
      > >> >Washington
      > >> >Jaime Herrera Beutler, 3rd District
      > >> >202-225-3536
      > >> > 
      > >> >Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 5th District
      > >> >202-225-2006
      > >> > 
      > >> >Dave Reichert, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-7761
      > >> > 
      > >> >West Virginia
      > >> >Shelley Moore Capito, 2nd District
      > >> >202-225-2711
      > >> > 
      > >> >Wisconsin
      > >> >Reid Ribble, 8th District
      > >> >202-225-5665
      > >> > 
      > >> >Wyoming
      > >> >Cynthia Lummis (At-Large)
      > >> >202-225-2311
      > >> >--------------------------------------
      > >> >The main switchboard will connect you to any congressman: 202-224-3121
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >


    • Bob Allen
      Every few years, Spence, when the hate legislation needs to be renewed, all the faux men come out of the woodwork and advocate continued destruction of men and
      Message 2 of 12 , May 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Every few years, Spence, when the hate legislation needs to be renewed, all the faux men come out of the woodwork and advocate continued destruction of men and families.  Manginas are worse than feminists.  They need to be run out of town on  a rail.
         
        Blessings
        Bob
         
         
         
         
        Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


        [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

        From: Spence <rights4men.immediately2@...>
        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:16 PM
        Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.

        Lol, ty Bob, that brightened my night. You know- I'd been working too much
        and the wife made me [sort of made me] drink last night. Lol, but now I feel
        not-so-good. Lol, got a groggy head, don't feel too good and it's like a
        badger's taken a dump in my mouth. lol. Feeling rotten. lol..... Do you have
        badgers? Like large skunks without the smell and with a bad temper.

        I just looked at it again. lol.

        Best Regards

        Spence
        -----------------------
        'my Congresscunt'

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Allen
        Date: 15 May 2012 22:40
        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.




        This happens every time the VAWA expires.  All the faux men rush out and
        support its renewal.  Hate doesn't have to be repealed.  It only needs to
        be not passed again.  But all the false men rush to Congress and onto Men's
        forums insisting that "Men" support VAWA.  Congress gets thousands of phone
        calls from manginas and pussy boys pretending to be men who support VAWA.
        Idiots in Congress think men support their anti-men hate legislation.  Women
        want it.  "Men" support it.  So it passes.

        Any pansy arse traitor who supports renewal of the worst anti-men,
        anti-family hate law ever enacted should turn in his man badge, or have it
        removed from him by every man who calls himself a man, by every man who
        cares about children and families, by every man who cares about men.  No
        real man would ever support such vile anti-men hate for any legitimate
        reason.  He just wouldn't.

        I have already contacted my Congresscunt and demanded that it be shelved.
        Every decent man would do the same.

        Blessings
        Bob




        Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


        [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should
        not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection,
        sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts.
        All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment
        of the US Constitution.]




        From: E <netethics07@...>
        To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29 AM
        Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.




        While my position has always been that VAWA is unconstitutional, fascist
        "law", its "new and improved" version supported by the DV colaitions is
        simply outrageously Nazi.

        Whether I like it or not, VAWA will be made into law. Politically, there
        were (and are) just three choices:

        1) An instant bi-partisan deal, always done in a matter of hours on all
        previous occasions. -- Din't happen this time, thanks to opposition by some
        men's group, and above all -- due to the outrageous femi-Nazi provisions in
        the Dem version, designed to insult intelligence and provoke opposition by
        Republicans. The obvious Political Stratagem was to accuse them of a "War on
        Women."  The back-and-forth discussions in Congress have been going on for 5
        months., which is unprecedented!  They are about to end this week with just
        one of two outcomes:

        2) Dem version, as per above
        3) Rep version, HR-4970.

        There is no choice for VAWA being repealed.  Republican congressmen are
        ready to give-in.  Taking a stance of "NO to VAWA, Period" is strictly
        Utopian at this time. I hope the time will come for it, but it is not today.

        While it is back to the old unpalatable choice of the lesser of 2 evils, I
        am not going to bite my nose in spite of my face (and ask men to do the
        same)  by assuming an impracticable absolutist position. The only result of
        it is going to be more men, stripped off all of their property and jailed.

        I make a pragmatic choice by allowing myself to be convinced by people who
        had spent much more time on negotiating these 2 bills, than anyone else ever
        did, and who are absolutely beyond any suspicion that they are somehow
        selling men's interests down the river.

        The blame for having no choice but to adopt one or the other version of VAWA
        is partly on all men, by being unable to organize into a cohesive, large and
        articulate movement.



        --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen <bobx23456@...> wrote:
        >
        > Once again, if MEN are supporting VAWA we are FOOLS.    This VAWA, or
        > "that" VAWA is a horror show for men.  The ONLY stand MEN should take is
        > to OPPOSE VAWA.  Its time for that obscenity to expire.
        > Bob
        > Â
        > Â
        > Â
        >
        > Catch more of The World according to Bob at:
        > http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
        >
        >
        > [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should
        > not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection,
        > sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal
        > acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st
        > Amendment of the US Constitution.]
        >
        > From: E netethics07@...
        > >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        > >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36 PM
        > >Subject: [AUM] STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
        > >
        > >
        > >Â
        > >Please, call, FAX, or e-mail as many Congressmen as possible on Tuesday
        > >and Wednesday. Say just one thing: Â
        > >Â I ASK YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON HR-4970.Â
        > >Â
        > >That is all.The phone numbers are at the bottom.Â
        > >Â ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > >Here's why: "the other" VAWA contains huge incentives for women to lie
        > >and connive, such as giving a woman entitlement to a subsidized housing
        > >if she ever in her life filed a DV report, no statute of limitations. My
        > >girfriend read the relevant portion of the text tonight and demanded I
        > >give her a shiner instead of her bying a retirement property. Just a bit
        > >of black humor here, but I know a few broads who wouldn't hesitate to
        > >give themselves a shiner, so as not to miss an opportunity of a lifetime.
        > >Â
        > >Â
        > >There is much more provisions enabling outright fraud and discrimination
        > >against men than can be covered in an e-mail, including no due process
        > >on campus for males when a female student files a sexual harassment or DV
        > >claim, government-paid lawyers and handsomly paid advocates coaching
        > >women to lie for fun and profit, instant legalization of illegal
        > >immigrants, and Indian tribal courts assuming jurisdiction over a
        > >non-tribal man and his property if a tribal woman files a DV complaint.
        > >Â
        > >In sum total, the Dem version has turned VAWA into pure, unadulterated
        > >fascism, the American style -- paid for with the taxpayers' largess. So,
        > >no, we are not talking about you asking for a "fair" federal law. It is
        > >still the old unconstitutional VAWA, but HR-4970 is a huge step away from
        > >fascism, away from fraud, and towards accounatbility.
        > >Â
        > >We are talking here about you preventing fascism, which shall otherwise
        > >be unleashed against you, your sons and neighbors, with tremendous
        > >vengeance. If you are a skeptic like me, read the bills and weep:
        > >amendments alone are on 197 pages. The text is about 700 pages.
        > >--------------------------------------------
        > >Â Alabama
        > >Martha Roby, 2nd District
        > >202-225-2901
        > >Â
        > >California
        > >Daniel Lungren, 3rd District
        > >202-225-5716
        > >Â
        > >Jeff Denham, 19th District
        > >202-225-4540
        > >Â
        > >Kevin McCarthy, 22nd District
        > >202-225-2915
        > >Â
        > >Gary Miller, 42nd District
        > >202-225-3201
        > >Â
        > >Mark Bono Mack, 45th District
        > >202-225-5330
        > >Â
        > >John Campbell, 48th District
        > >202-225-5611
        > >Â
        > >Darrell Issa, 49th District
        > >202-225-3906
        > >Â
        > >Brian Billbray, 50th District
        > >202-225-0508
        > >Â
        > >Colorado
        > >Scott Tipton, 3rd District
        > >202-225-4761
        > >Â
        > >Mike Coffman, 6th District
        > >202-225-7882
        > >Â
        > >Florida
        > >Steve Southerland, II, 2nd District
        > >202-225-5235
        > >Â
        > >Daniel Webster, 8th District
        > >202-225-2176
        > >Â
        > >Vern Buchanan, 13th District
        > >202-225-5015
        > >Â
        > >Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, 18th District
        > >202-225-3931
        > >Â
        > >Mario Diaz-Balart, 21st District
        > >202-225-4211
        > >Â
        > >Allen West, 22nd District
        > >202-225-3026
        > >Â
        > >Sandy Adams, 24th District
        > >(Bill Author)
        > >202-225-2706
        > >Â
        > >David Rivera, 25th District
        > >202-225-2778
        > >Â
        > >Georgia
        > >Tom Price, 6th District
        > >202-225-4501
        > >Â
        > >Illinois
        > >Robert Dold, 10th District
        > >202-225-4835
        > >Â
        > >Judy Biggert, 13th District
        > >202-225-3515
        > >Â
        > >Timothy Johnson, 15th District
        > >202-225-2371
        > >Â
        > >Bobby Schilling, 17th District
        > >202-225-5905
        > >Â
        > >Aaron Schock, 18th District
        > >202-225-6201
        > >Â
        > >Kansas
        > >Lynn Jenkins, 2nd District
        > >202-225-6601
        > >Â
        > >Maryland
        > >Roscoe Bartlett, 6th District
        > >202-225-2721
        > >Â
        > >Michigan
        > >Dan Benishek, 1st District
        > >202-225-4735
        > >Â
        > >Candice Miller, 10th District
        > >202-225-2106
        > >Â
        > >Minnesota
        > >Michele Bachmann, 6th District
        > >202-225-2331
        > >Â
        > >Chip Cravaack, 8th District
        > >202-225-6211
        > >Â
        > >Missouri
        > >Vicky Hartzler, 4th District
        > >202-225-2876
        > >Â
        > >Jo Ann Emerson, 8th District
        > >202-225-4404
        > >Â
        > >Nevada
        > >Mark Amodei, 2nd District
        > >202-225-6155
        > >Â
        > >Joe Heck, 3rd District
        > >202-225-3252
        > >Â
        > >New Hampshire
        > >Charles Bass, 2nd District
        > >202-225-5206
        > >Â
        > >New Jersey
        > >Frank Lobiondo, 2nd District
        > >202-225-6572
        > >Â
        > >John Runyan, 3rd District
        > >202-225-4765
        > >Â
        > >New York
        > >Robert Turner, 9th District
        > >202-225-6616
        > >Â
        > >Michael Grimm, 13th District
        > >202-225-3371
        > >Â
        > >Nan Hayworth, 19th District
        > >202-225-5441
        > >Â
        > >Chris Gibson, 20th District
        > >202-225-5614
        > >Â
        > >Ann Marie Burkle, 25th District
        > >202-225-3701
        > >Â
        > >North Carolina
        > >Renee Ellmers, 2nd District
        > >202-225-4531
        > >Â
        > >Virginia Foxx, 5th District
        > >202-225-2071
        > >Â
        > >Sue Myrick, 9th District
        > >202-225-1976
        > >Â
        > >Ohio
        > >Jean Schmidt, 2nd District
        > >202-225-3164
        > >Â
        > >John Boehner, 8th District (Speaker)
        > >202-225-0600
        > >Â
        > >Steven LaTourette, 14th District
        > >202-225-5731
        > >Â
        > >Steve Stivers, 15th District
        > >202-225-2015
        > >Â
        > >James Renacci, 16th District
        > >202-225-3876
        > >Â
        > >Pennsylvania
        > >Jim Gerlack, 6th District
        > >202-225-4315
        > >Â
        > >Patrick Meehan, 7th District
        > >202-225-2011
        > >Â
        > >Michael Fitzpatrick, 8th District
        > >202-225-4276
        > >Â
        > >Charlie Dent, 15th District
        > >202-225-6411
        > >Â
        > >Tim Murphy, 18th District
        > >202-225-2301
        > >Â
        > >Todd Platts, 19th District
        > >202-225-5836
        > >Â
        > >South Dakota
        > >Kristi Noem
        > >202-225-2801
        > >Â
        > >Tennessee
        > >Diane Black, 6th District
        > >202-225-4231
        > >Â
        > >Marsha Blackburn, 7th District
        > >202-225-2811
        > >Â
        > >Texas
        > >Ted Poe, 2nd District
        > >202-225-6565
        > >Â
        > >Jeb Hensarling, 5th District
        > >202-225-3484
        > >Â
        > >Kay Granger, 12th District
        > >202-225-5071
        > >Â
        > >Lamar Smith, 21st District (Judiciary Chairman)
        > >202-225-4236
        > >Â
        > >Francisco Canseco, 23rd District
        > >202-225-4511
        > >Â
        > >Virginia
        > >Eric Cantor, 7th District
        > >202-225-2815
        > >Â
        > >Washington
        > >Jaime Herrera Beutler, 3rd District
        > >202-225-3536
        > >Â
        > >Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 5th District
        > >202-225-2006
        > >Â
        > >Dave Reichert, 8th District
        > >202-225-7761
        > >Â
        > >West Virginia
        > >Shelley Moore Capito, 2nd District
        > >202-225-2711
        > >Â
        > >Wisconsin
        > >Reid Ribble, 8th District
        > >202-225-5665
        > >Â
        > >Wyoming
        > >Cynthia Lummis (At-Large)
        > >202-225-2311
        > >--------------------------------------
        > >The main switchboard will connect you to any congressman: 202-224-3121
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >












        ------------------------------------

        The Masculist Trinity

        http://qimtunes.freewebpages.org/masculisttrinity.html

        Howard Schwartz's Great Anti-Feminist Articles:
        http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/schwartz/Papers.htm

        Posts to the list do not necessarily reflect AUM or list memebership's beliefs. 

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/

        <*> Your email settings:
            Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/join
            (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
            aum-digest@yahoogroups.com
            aum-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            aum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



      • E
        You can continue living in your little two-bit-brain fantasy world, as much as you wish. The reality is a whole lot different: There was NO option of retiring
        Message 3 of 12 , May 24, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          You can continue living in your little two-bit-brain fantasy world, as much as you wish.

          The reality is a whole lot different: There was NO option of retiring VAWA. There were only two options -- HR 4970, and the VAWA with a gazillion of NEW provisions for fraud, false allegations, and men-need-not-apply provisions.  
          --------------------------------
          The Congress adopted 4970, by a narrow margin. President Obama (AND YOU) hate it so much, he promised to veto it, because 4970 is the "War on Women" he explained.
          -------------------------------
          Here's the rub: due to a little technicality called the US Constitution, there need be NO reconciliation with the Femi-nazi Senate version. Even though normally, the Senate version of VAWA (with many new provisions allowing fraud and unabated false allegations)  and the House version (with accountability measures against fraud) would have to be reconciled, in the instant case the House bill HR 4970 stands... on a constitutional "technicality" (see below)... except, of course, Obama threatened to veto it... and politicians on both sides of the isle may engage in horse trading.

          It is a double-whammy victory for men, those who have brain. You don't.
          _____________________________________

          How Republicans Have Gained The Upper Hand In The Fight Over The Violence Against Women Act
           
          Brian Beutler- May 21, 2012, 5:22 AM  
          9743   

          An obscure parliamentary snafu has stymied Democrats' aggressive efforts to extend Violence Against Women Act protections to same-sex couples, illegal immigrants, and tribal communities, and provided the GOP leverage to keep those provisions out of legislation to reauthorize that law. 

          It has been weeks since Senate Democrats — and several Republicans — passed VAWA legislation, and left House Republicans in the tough position of arguing that the law's scope should not be explicitly widened. Last week House Republicans passed a narrower reauthorization bill, which the White House has threatened to veto, giving Dems what they believed to be an upper hand.

          Typically, this ordering of events would give Democrats a great deal of leverage over Republicans, and possibly force them to agree to provisions that would alienate GOP voters by benefiting constituencies the base is hostile to. 

          "The House Republicans passed a bill that takes us backward in terms of protections for women," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday.

          But instead of walking away with wins for gay, immigrant, and native American communities, or of messaging against GOP holding up VAWA, they hit a snag.

          "The Senate's passed a bill, but they haven't sent it over because it has a blue slip problem," said House Speaker John Boehner at a Thursday press conference. "Our bill's over there. It'll be up I think to the Senate to request a conference."

          He's referring to an obscure practice the House uses to kill Senate-originated legislation, if the measure raises revenue. The Constitution's Origination Clause requires revenue raising bills to have their first reading in the House — not the Senate. A provision in the Senate's VAWA bill generates revenue by imposing a fee for visas that go to immigrant victims of domestic abuse. 

          Normally, the Senate can work around this requirement by amending House bills or by using House-passed revenue bills as vehicles for their own legislation. Senate Dems didn't regard the visa fee as a revenue provision and have thus fallen into a trap. For all intents and purposes they don't have a bill to bring to a conference committee with House Republicans. They can and may attempt to relegislate VAWA in a way that fulfills the origination requirements — but out of deference to Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could significantly delay or completely block such an effort. 

          Alternatively, as a top Senate Democratic aide pointed out, House Republicans could simply drop their blue-slip threat, as they did for recent transportation legislation. But Boehner's not likely to agree to that unless Democrats give up something in return — and at the expense of key Democratic constituencies. 

          "We're eager to resolve our differences between the House and Senate on the issue of domestic violence," Boehner said. "I think the bigger issue is whether Senator Schumer and his Democrat allies in the Senate want to come to an agreement on this bill, or whether they want to continue to attempt to use it as a political weapon in this year's election cycle."
           

          topics: Constitution, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Violence Against Women Act  

           
           


          House Approves Violence Against Women Act:

          SAVE Applauds Long-Overdue Reform Measures

          WASHINGTON / May 17, 2012 – The House of Representatives has passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act by a 222-205 margin. Responding to public discontent, H.R. 4970 contains a number of measures designed to curb widespread waste and fraud in the domestic violence field.

          A recent U.S. News poll found a strong majority of persons are opposed to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in its current form: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-violence-against-women-act-be-reauthorized. Many women have questioned the effectiveness and fairness of the existing VAWA law:http://womenagainstvawa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Flyer-VAWA-Pro-Woman.pdf

          Reforms contained in H.R. 4970 include strong accountability measures, gender-inclusive language, and provisions to stem fraudulent claims of abuse by immigrants. The current VAWA law has invited immigration fraud by not allowing the US citizen accused of abuse to submit evidence that could refute the accusation.

          The White House played an active role in opposing the bill. The Obama Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on Tuesday stating it would veto any bill that was modeled on H.R. 4970.

          During Wednesday's floor debate, sponsor Sandy Adams (R-FL) withstood numerous challenges. When informed by John Conyers (D-MI) that numerous organizations opposed her bill, she retorted, "Shame on them!"

          Following passage of the bill, a number of established domestic violence organizations have reacted with anger and implied threats. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women called the bill "dangerous." The National Organization for Women charged that Representatives who voted for the bill "will be judged in the public arena and at the polls in November."

          According to SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook, "H.R. 4970 certainly is not a perfect bill. Still, passage of the House measure is a victory for victims who have been refused service in the past. It removes most sex discriminatory language. It is also a victory for taxpayers who are tired of the ongoing reports of waste and fraud."

          SAVE thanks the many organizations and individuals who have supported VAWA reform efforts. SAVE will continue to work for ways to reform and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act:www.saveservices.org/pvra.





          --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen <bobx23456@...> wrote:
          >
          > You are doubly wrong, E.  The VAWA law has a "sunset" clause that made it law for only 5 years.  It expires every 5  years unless it is passed again.   Its been extended 3 times if I remember right.  It is being considered now because its about to expire, go away, end, stop, sunset.  If Congress does nothing it will go away.
          >  
          > No man who cares about families or children or men would support VAWA.  Its the worst anti-men hate law ever enacted by Congress.  Every time it expires all the fraud men's advocates rush to support its renewal and encourage men to support it.   Congress ends up thinking that men support VAWA because they get the femiNazi females and the sick mangina men asking for renewal. 
          >  
          > Any man who is a man would call or write to his Congressman and demand that it be ended, shelved, not passed, not renewed, lost in committee, not voted on.   Some men finally need to tell Congress that men are not fond of anti-men hate as law. 
          >  
          > Supporters of VAWA renewal are not men who can be trusted in the MRA community, or anywhere that men gather. They are mangina lackeys of the feminocracy who pretend to be men.
          >  
          > Blessings
          > Bob
          >  
          >  
          >  
          >
          > Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
          >
          >
          > [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
          >
          > From: E netethics07@...
          > >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          > >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:26 PM
          > >Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
          > >
          > >
          > > 
          > >VAWA, as any federal law, does not "expire".  If not signed into law due to a stalemate, the Congressional Appropriations committee will continue paying the funds to the DV industry, and all will be as it has been in the last few years. Except, not a single congressman protested against VAWA.  "Re-authorization" only means tailoring it to the current political demands, it does not mean an "expiration."
          > >
          > >
          > >The only way to rid the world of this unconstitutional law is to REPEAL it.  Apparently, your  calls dd not convince a single Senator or Congressman to sponsor a bill to repeal VAWA.  So, the only two options the House of Representatives will discuss tomorrow are the two versions -- one Republican and one-- democrat.
          > >
          > >
          > >You are against both (even though you know that ONE shall become law, and ONE is far worse than the current VAWA, and far worse than the version, sponsored by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL). 
          > >
          > >You want to pretend to be a purist, a martyr, and you want other men to accept their martyrdom by choosing the "option" which does not exist, though they don't seem to give a damn about anything, until they become a victim.
          > >
          > >
          > >I want them to survive, to live another day, and to be able to fight against VAWA tomorrow.
          > >
          > >
          > >I was brought up on the military tradition of strategy and tactics and maneuver,  which would let me keep my men alive today and fighting hard tomorrow. You want them dead now, but "proud." 
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen bobx23456@ wrote:
          > >>
          > >> This happens every time the VAWA expires.   All the faux men rush out and support its renewal.   Hate doesn't have to be repealed.  It only needs to be not passed again.  But all the false men rush to Congress and onto Men's forums insisting that "Men" support VAWA.   Congress gets thousands of phone calls from manginas and pussy boys pretending to be men who support VAWA.   Idiots in Congress think men support their anti-men hate legislation.  Women want it.  "Men" support it.  So it passes.  
          > >>  
          > >> Any pansy arse traitor who supports renewal of the worst anti-men, anti-family hate law ever enacted should turn in his man badge, or have it removed from him by every man who calls himself a man, by every man who cares about children and families, by every man who cares about men.   No real man would ever support such vile anti-men hate for any legitimate reason.  He just wouldn't. 
          > >>  
          > >> I have already contacted my Congresscunt and demanded that it be shelved.   Every decent man would do the same.
          > >>  
          > >> Blessings
          > >> Bob
          > >>  
          > >>  
          > >>
          > >> Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
          > >>
          > >> From: E netethics07@
          > >> >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          > >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29 AM
          > >> >Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> > 
          > >> >While my position has always been that VAWA is unconstitutional, fascist "law", its "new and improved" version supported by the DV colaitions is simply outrageously Nazi. 
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >Whether I like it or not, VAWA will be made into law. Politically, there were (and are) just three choices:
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >1) An instant bi-partisan deal, always done in a matter of hours on all previous occasions. -- Din't happen this time, thanks to opposition by some men's group, and above all -- due to the outrageous femi-Nazi provisions in the Dem version, designed to insult intelligence and provoke opposition by Republicans. The obvious Political Stratagem was to accuse them of a "War on Women."  The back-and-forth discussions in Congress have been going on for 5 months., which is unprecedented!  They are about to end this week with just one of two outcomes:
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >2) Dem version, as per above
          > >> >3) Rep version, HR-4970.
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >There is no choice for VAWA being repealed.  Republican congressmen are ready to give-in.  Taking a stance of "NO to VAWA, Period" is strictly Utopian at this time. I hope the time will come for it, but it is not today.
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >While it is back to the old unpalatable choice of the lesser of 2 evils, I am not going to bite my nose in spite of my face (and ask men to do the same)  by assuming an impracticable absolutist position. The only result of it is going to be more men, stripped off all of their property and jailed.  
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >I make a pragmatic choice by allowing myself to be convinced by people who had spent much more time on negotiating these 2 bills, than anyone else ever did, and who are absolutely beyond any suspicion that they are somehow  selling men's interests down the river. 
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >The blame for having no choice but to adopt one or the other version of VAWA is partly on all men, by being unable to organize into a cohesive, large and articulate movement.  
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen bobx23456@ wrote:
          > >> >>
          > >> >> Once again, if MEN are supporting VAWA we are FOOLS.    This VAWA, or "that" VAWA is a horror show for men.  The ONLY stand MEN should take is to OPPOSE VAWA.  Its time for that obscenity to expire.
          > >> >> Bob
          > >> >>  
          > >> >>  
          > >> >>  
          > >> >>
          > >> >> Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
          > >> >>
          > >> >>
          > >> >> [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
          > >> >>
          > >> >> From: E netethics07@
          > >> >> >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          > >> >> >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36 PM
          > >> >> >Subject: [AUM] STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Please, call, FAX, or e-mail as many Congressmen as possible on Tuesday and Wednesday. Say just one thing:  
          > >> >> > I ASK YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON HR-4970. 
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >That is all.The phone numbers are at the bottom. 
          > >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >> >> >Here's why: "the other" VAWA contains huge incentives for women to lie and connive, such as giving a woman entitlement to a subsidized housing if she ever in her life filed a DV report, no statute of limitations. My girfriend read the relevant portion of the text tonight and demanded I give her a shiner instead of her bying a retirement property. Just a bit of black humor here, but I know a few broads who wouldn't hesitate to give themselves a shiner, so as not to miss an opportunity of a lifetime.
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >There is much more provisions enabling outright fraud and discrimination against men than can be covered in an e-mail, including no due process on campus for males when a female student files a sexual harassment or DV claim, government-paid lawyers and handsomly paid advocates coaching women to lie for fun and profit, instant legalization of illegal immigrants, and Indian tribal courts assuming jurisdiction over a non-tribal man and his property if a tribal woman files a DV complaint.
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >In sum total, the Dem version has turned VAWA into pure, unadulterated fascism, the American style -- paid for with the taxpayers' largess. So, no, we are not talking about you asking for a "fair" federal law. It is still the old unconstitutional VAWA, but HR-4970 is a huge step away from fascism, away from fraud, and towards accounatbility.
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >We are talking here about you preventing fascism, which shall otherwise be unleashed against you, your sons and neighbors, with tremendous vengeance. If you are a skeptic like me, read the bills and weep: amendments alone are on 197 pages. The text is about 700 pages.
          > >> >> >--------------------------------------------
          > >> >> > Alabama
          > >> >> >Martha Roby, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-2901
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >California
          > >> >> >Daniel Lungren, 3rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-5716
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Jeff Denham, 19th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4540
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Kevin McCarthy, 22nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-2915
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Gary Miller, 42nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-3201
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Mark Bono Mack, 45th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5330
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >John Campbell, 48th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5611
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Darrell Issa, 49th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3906
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Brian Billbray, 50th District
          > >> >> >202-225-0508
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Colorado
          > >> >> >Scott Tipton, 3rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-4761
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Mike Coffman, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-7882
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Florida
          > >> >> >Steve Southerland, II, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-5235
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Daniel Webster, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2176
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Vern Buchanan, 13th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5015
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, 18th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3931
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Mario Diaz-Balart, 21st District
          > >> >> >202-225-4211
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Allen West, 22nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-3026
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Sandy Adams, 24th District
          > >> >> >(Bill Author)
          > >> >> >202-225-2706
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >David Rivera, 25th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2778
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Georgia
          > >> >> >Tom Price, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4501
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Illinois
          > >> >> >Robert Dold, 10th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4835
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Judy Biggert, 13th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3515
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Timothy Johnson, 15th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2371
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Bobby Schilling, 17th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5905
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Aaron Schock, 18th District
          > >> >> >202-225-6201
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Kansas
          > >> >> >Lynn Jenkins, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-6601
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Maryland
          > >> >> >Roscoe Bartlett, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2721
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Michigan
          > >> >> >Dan Benishek, 1st District
          > >> >> >202-225-4735
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Candice Miller, 10th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2106
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Minnesota
          > >> >> >Michele Bachmann, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2331
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Chip Cravaack, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-6211
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Missouri
          > >> >> >Vicky Hartzler, 4th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2876
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Jo Ann Emerson, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4404
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Nevada
          > >> >> >Mark Amodei, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-6155
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Joe Heck, 3rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-3252
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >New Hampshire
          > >> >> >Charles Bass, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-5206
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >New Jersey
          > >> >> >Frank Lobiondo, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-6572
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >John Runyan, 3rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-4765
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >New York
          > >> >> >Robert Turner, 9th District
          > >> >> >202-225-6616
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Michael Grimm, 13th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3371
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Nan Hayworth, 19th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5441
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Chris Gibson, 20th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5614
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Ann Marie Burkle, 25th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3701
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >North Carolina
          > >> >> >Renee Ellmers, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-4531
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Virginia Foxx, 5th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2071
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Sue Myrick, 9th District
          > >> >> >202-225-1976
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Ohio
          > >> >> >Jean Schmidt, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-3164
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >John Boehner, 8th District (Speaker)
          > >> >> >202-225-0600
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Steven LaTourette, 14th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5731
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Steve Stivers, 15th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2015
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >James Renacci, 16th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3876
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Pennsylvania
          > >> >> >Jim Gerlack, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4315
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Patrick Meehan, 7th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2011
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Michael Fitzpatrick, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4276
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Charlie Dent, 15th District
          > >> >> >202-225-6411
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Tim Murphy, 18th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2301
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Todd Platts, 19th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5836
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >South Dakota
          > >> >> >Kristi Noem
          > >> >> >202-225-2801
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Tennessee
          > >> >> >Diane Black, 6th District
          > >> >> >202-225-4231
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Marsha Blackburn, 7th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2811
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Texas
          > >> >> >Ted Poe, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-6565
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Jeb Hensarling, 5th District
          > >> >> >202-225-3484
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Kay Granger, 12th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5071
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Lamar Smith, 21st District (Judiciary Chairman)
          > >> >> >202-225-4236
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Francisco Canseco, 23rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-4511
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Virginia
          > >> >> >Eric Cantor, 7th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2815
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Washington
          > >> >> >Jaime Herrera Beutler, 3rd District
          > >> >> >202-225-3536
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 5th District
          > >> >> >202-225-2006
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Dave Reichert, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-7761
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >West Virginia
          > >> >> >Shelley Moore Capito, 2nd District
          > >> >> >202-225-2711
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Wisconsin
          > >> >> >Reid Ribble, 8th District
          > >> >> >202-225-5665
          > >> >> > 
          > >> >> >Wyoming
          > >> >> >Cynthia Lummis (At-Large)
          > >> >> >202-225-2311
          > >> >> >--------------------------------------
          > >> >> >The main switchboard will connect you to any congressman: 202-224-3121
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> >
          > >> >> >
          > >> >>
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >> >
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Bob Allen
          Sigh.   Mangina feminists call us names and fight real men as usual.  As long as manginas pretending to be Men and Men s Groups support the feminist War on
          Message 4 of 12 , May 25, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Sigh.   Mangina feminists call us names and fight real men as usual.  As long as manginas pretending to be Men and Men's Groups support the feminist War on Men and families, Congress is never going to let it die.   Manginas are worse enemies of men than the feminists.  
             
            The only way that MEN are ever going to stop the War on Men is to oppose it.  
             
             
            Blessings
            Bob
             
            Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/


            [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]

            From: E <netethics07@...>
            To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:17 PM
            Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.

             
            You can continue living in your little two-bit-brain fantasy world, as much as you wish.

            The reality is a whole lot different: There was NO option of retiring VAWA. There were only two options -- HR 4970, and the VAWA with a gazillion of NEW provisions for fraud, false allegations, and men-need-not-apply provisions.  
            --------------------------------
            The Congress adopted 4970, by a narrow margin. President Obama (AND YOU) hate it so much, he promised to veto it, because 4970 is the "War on Women" he explained.
            -------------------------------
            Here's the rub: due to a little technicality called the US Constitution, there need be NO reconciliation with the Femi-nazi Senate version. Even though normally, the Senate version of VAWA (with many new provisions allowing fraud and unabated false allegations)  and the House version (with accountability measures against fraud) would have to be reconciled, in the instant case the House bill HR 4970 stands... on a constitutional "technicality" (see below)... except, of course, Obama threatened to veto it... and politicians on both sides of the isle may engage in horse trading.

            It is a double-whammy victory for men, those who have brain. You don't.
            _____________________________________

            How Republicans Have Gained The Upper Hand In The Fight Over The Violence Against Women Act
             
            Brian Beutler- May 21, 2012, 5:22 AM  
            9743   

            An obscure parliamentary snafu has stymied Democrats' aggressive efforts to extend Violence Against Women Act protections to same-sex couples, illegal immigrants, and tribal communities, and provided the GOP leverage to keep those provisions out of legislation to reauthorize that law. 

            It has been weeks since Senate Democrats — and several Republicans — passed VAWA legislation, and left House Republicans in the tough position of arguing that the law's scope should not be explicitly widened. Last week House Republicans passed a narrower reauthorization bill, which the White House has threatened to veto, giving Dems what they believed to be an upper hand.

            Typically, this ordering of events would give Democrats a great deal of leverage over Republicans, and possibly force them to agree to provisions that would alienate GOP voters by benefiting constituencies the base is hostile to. 

            "The House Republicans passed a bill that takes us backward in terms of protections for women," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday.

            But instead of walking away with wins for gay, immigrant, and native American communities, or of messaging against GOP holding up VAWA, they hit a snag.

            "The Senate's passed a bill, but they haven't sent it over because it has a blue slip problem," said House Speaker John Boehner at a Thursday press conference. "Our bill's over there. It'll be up I think to the Senate to request a conference."

            He's referring to an obscure practice the House uses to kill Senate-originated legislation, if the measure raises revenue. The Constitution's Origination Clause requires revenue raising bills to have their first reading in the House — not the Senate. A provision in the Senate's VAWA bill generates revenue by imposing a fee for visas that go to immigrant victims of domestic abuse. 

            Normally, the Senate can work around this requirement by amending House bills or by using House-passed revenue bills as vehicles for their own legislation. Senate Dems didn't regard the visa fee as a revenue provision and have thus fallen into a trap. For all intents and purposes they don't have a bill to bring to a conference committee with House Republicans. They can and may attempt to relegislate VAWA in a way that fulfills the origination requirements — but out of deference to Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could significantly delay or completely block such an effort. 

            Alternatively, as a top Senate Democratic aide pointed out, House Republicans could simply drop their blue-slip threat, as they did for recent transportation legislation. But Boehner's not likely to agree to that unless Democrats give up something in return — and at the expense of key Democratic constituencies. 

            "We're eager to resolve our differences between the House and Senate on the issue of domestic violence," Boehner said. "I think the bigger issue is whether Senator Schumer and his Democrat allies in the Senate want to come to an agreement on this bill, or whether they want to continue to attempt to use it as a political weapon in this year's election cycle."
             

            topics: Constitution, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Violence Against Women Act  

             
             


            House Approves Violence Against Women Act:
            SAVE Applauds Long-Overdue Reform Measures
            WASHINGTON / May 17, 2012 – The House of Representatives has passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act by a 222-205 margin. Responding to public discontent, H.R. 4970 contains a number of measures designed to curb widespread waste and fraud in the domestic violence field.
            A recent U.S. News poll found a strong majority of persons are opposed to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in its current form: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-violence-against-women-act-be-reauthorized. Many women have questioned the effectiveness and fairness of the existing VAWA law:http://womenagainstvawa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Flyer-VAWA-Pro-Woman.pdf
            Reforms contained in H.R. 4970 include strong accountability measures, gender-inclusive language, and provisions to stem fraudulent claims of abuse by immigrants. The current VAWA law has invited immigration fraud by not allowing the US citizen accused of abuse to submit evidence that could refute the accusation.
            The White House played an active role in opposing the bill. The Obama Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on Tuesday stating it would veto any bill that was modeled on H.R. 4970.
            During Wednesday's floor debate, sponsor Sandy Adams (R-FL) withstood numerous challenges. When informed by John Conyers (D-MI) that numerous organizations opposed her bill, she retorted, "Shame on them!"
            Following passage of the bill, a number of established domestic violence organizations have reacted with anger and implied threats. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women called the bill "dangerous." The National Organization for Women charged that Representatives who voted for the bill "will be judged in the public arena and at the polls in November."
            According to SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook, "H.R. 4970 certainly is not a perfect bill. Still, passage of the House measure is a victory for victims who have been refused service in the past. It removes most sex discriminatory language. It is also a victory for taxpayers who are tired of the ongoing reports of waste and fraud."
            SAVE thanks the many organizations and individuals who have supported VAWA reform efforts. SAVE will continue to work for ways to reform and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act:www.saveservices.org/pvra.




            --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen <bobx23456@...> wrote:
            >
            > You are doubly wrong, E.  The VAWA law has a "sunset" clause that made it law for only 5 years.  It expires every 5  years unless it is passed again.   Its been extended 3 times if I remember right.  It is being considered now because its about to expire, go away, end, stop, sunset.  If Congress does nothing it will go away.
            >  
            > No man who cares about families or children or men would support VAWA.  Its the worst anti-men hate law ever enacted by Congress.  Every time it expires all the fraud men's advocates rush to support its renewal and encourage men to support it.   Congress ends up thinking that men support VAWA because they get the femiNazi females and the sick mangina men asking for renewal. 
            >  
            > Any man who is a man would call or write to his Congressman and demand that it be ended, shelved, not passed, not renewed, lost in committee, not voted on.   Some men finally need to tell Congress that men are not fond of anti-men hate as law. 
            >  
            > Supporters of VAWA renewal are not men who can be trusted in the MRA community, or anywhere that men gather. They are mangina lackeys of the feminocracy who pretend to be men.
            >  
            > Blessings
            > Bob
            >  
            >  
            >  
            >
            > Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
            >
            >
            > [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
            >
            > From: E netethics07@...
            > >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 5:26 PM
            > >Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
            > >
            > >
            > > 
            > >VAWA, as any federal law, does not "expire".  If not signed into law due to a stalemate, the Congressional Appropriations committee will continue paying the funds to the DV industry, and all will be as it has been in the last few years. Except, not a single congressman protested against VAWA.  "Re-authorization" only means tailoring it to the current political demands, it does not mean an "expiration."
            > >
            > >
            > >The only way to rid the world of this unconstitutional law is to REPEAL it.  Apparently, your  calls dd not convince a single Senator or Congressman to sponsor a bill to repeal VAWA.  So, the only two options the House of Representatives will discuss tomorrow are the two versions -- one Republican and one-- democrat.
            > >
            > >
            > >You are against both (even though you know that ONE shall become law, and ONE is far worse than the current VAWA, and far worse than the version, sponsored by Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL). 
            > >
            > >You want to pretend to be a purist, a martyr, and you want other men to accept their martyrdom by choosing the "option" which does not exist, though they don't seem to give a damn about anything, until they become a victim.
            > >
            > >
            > >I want them to survive, to live another day, and to be able to fight against VAWA tomorrow.
            > >
            > >
            > >I was brought up on the military tradition of strategy and tactics and maneuver,  which would let me keep my men alive today and fighting hard tomorrow. You want them dead now, but "proud." 
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen bobx23456@ wrote:
            > >>
            > >> This happens every time the VAWA expires.   All the faux men rush out and support its renewal.   Hate doesn't have to be repealed.  It only needs to be not passed again.  But all the false men rush to Congress and onto Men's forums insisting that "Men" support VAWA.   Congress gets thousands of phone calls from manginas and pussy boys pretending to be men who support VAWA.   Idiots in Congress think men support their anti-men hate legislation.  Women want it.  "Men" support it.  So it passes.  
            > >>  
            > >> Any pansy arse traitor who supports renewal of the worst anti-men, anti-family hate law ever enacted should turn in his man badge, or have it removed from him by every man who calls himself a man, by every man who cares about children and families, by every man who cares about men.   No real man would ever support such vile anti-men hate for any legitimate reason.  He just wouldn't. 
            > >>  
            > >> I have already contacted my Congresscunt and demanded that it be shelved.   Every decent man would do the same.
            > >>  
            > >> Blessings
            > >> Bob
            > >>  
            > >>  
            > >>
            > >> Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
            > >>
            > >> From: E netethics07@
            > >> >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > >> >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29 AM
            > >> >Subject: [AUM] Re: STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> > 
            > >> >While my position has always been that VAWA is unconstitutional, fascist "law", its "new and improved" version supported by the DV colaitions is simply outrageously Nazi. 
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >Whether I like it or not, VAWA will be made into law. Politically, there were (and are) just three choices:
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >1) An instant bi-partisan deal, always done in a matter of hours on all previous occasions. -- Din't happen this time, thanks to opposition by some men's group, and above all -- due to the outrageous femi-Nazi provisions in the Dem version, designed to insult intelligence and provoke opposition by Republicans. The obvious Political Stratagem was to accuse them of a "War on Women."  The back-and-forth discussions in Congress have been going on for 5 months., which is unprecedented!  They are about to end this week with just one of two outcomes:
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >2) Dem version, as per above
            > >> >3) Rep version, HR-4970.
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >There is no choice for VAWA being repealed.  Republican congressmen are ready to give-in.  Taking a stance of "NO to VAWA, Period" is strictly Utopian at this time. I hope the time will come for it, but it is not today.
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >While it is back to the old unpalatable choice of the lesser of 2 evils, I am not going to bite my nose in spite of my face (and ask men to do the same)  by assuming an impracticable absolutist position. The only result of it is going to be more men, stripped off all of their property and jailed.  
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >I make a pragmatic choice by allowing myself to be convinced by people who had spent much more time on negotiating these 2 bills, than anyone else ever did, and who are absolutely beyond any suspicion that they are somehow  selling men's interests down the river. 
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >The blame for having no choice but to adopt one or the other version of VAWA is partly on all men, by being unable to organize into a cohesive, large and articulate movement.  
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >--- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Bob Allen bobx23456@ wrote:
            > >> >>
            > >> >> Once again, if MEN are supporting VAWA we are FOOLS.    This VAWA, or "that" VAWA is a horror show for men.  The ONLY stand MEN should take is to OPPOSE VAWA.  Its time for that obscenity to expire.
            > >> >> Bob
            > >> >>  
            > >> >>  
            > >> >>  
            > >> >>
            > >> >> Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
            > >> >>
            > >> >>
            > >> >> [Legal Notice: All posts of Bob are rhetorical in nature only, and should not be construed in any other manner. Bob does not advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence, assault, or any other criminal or illegal acts. All opinions of Bob are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.]
            > >> >>
            > >> >> From: E netethics07@
            > >> >> >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > >> >> >Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36 PM
            > >> >> >Subject: [AUM] STOP FASCIST version of VAWA.
            > >> >> >
            > >> >> >
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Please, call, FAX, or e-mail as many Congressmen as possible on Tuesday and Wednesday. Say just one thing:  
            > >> >> > I ASK YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON HR-4970. 
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >That is all.The phone numbers are at the bottom. 
            > >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > >> >> >Here's why: "the other" VAWA contains huge incentives for women to lie and connive, such as giving a woman entitlement to a subsidized housing if she ever in her life filed a DV report, no statute of limitations. My girfriend read the relevant portion of the text tonight and demanded I give her a shiner instead of her bying a retirement property. Just a bit of black humor here, but I know a few broads who wouldn't hesitate to give themselves a shiner, so as not to miss an opportunity of a lifetime.
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >There is much more provisions enabling outright fraud and discrimination against men than can be covered in an e-mail, including no due process on campus for males when a female student files a sexual harassment or DV claim, government-paid lawyers and handsomly paid advocates coaching women to lie for fun and profit, instant legalization of illegal immigrants, and Indian tribal courts assuming jurisdiction over a non-tribal man and his property if a tribal woman files a DV complaint.
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >In sum total, the Dem version has turned VAWA into pure, unadulterated fascism, the American style -- paid for with the taxpayers' largess. So, no, we are not talking about you asking for a "fair" federal law. It is still the old unconstitutional VAWA, but HR-4970 is a huge step away from fascism, away from fraud, and towards accounatbility.
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >We are talking here about you preventing fascism, which shall otherwise be unleashed against you, your sons and neighbors, with tremendous vengeance. If you are a skeptic like me, read the bills and weep: amendments alone are on 197 pages. The text is about 700 pages.
            > >> >> >--------------------------------------------
            > >> >> > Alabama
            > >> >> >Martha Roby, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-2901
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >California
            > >> >> >Daniel Lungren, 3rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-5716
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Jeff Denham, 19th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4540
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Kevin McCarthy, 22nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-2915
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Gary Miller, 42nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-3201
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Mark Bono Mack, 45th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5330
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >John Campbell, 48th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5611
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Darrell Issa, 49th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3906
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Brian Billbray, 50th District
            > >> >> >202-225-0508
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Colorado
            > >> >> >Scott Tipton, 3rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-4761
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Mike Coffman, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-7882
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Florida
            > >> >> >Steve Southerland, II, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-5235
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Daniel Webster, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2176
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Vern Buchanan, 13th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5015
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, 18th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3931
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Mario Diaz-Balart, 21st District
            > >> >> >202-225-4211
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Allen West, 22nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-3026
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Sandy Adams, 24th District
            > >> >> >(Bill Author)
            > >> >> >202-225-2706
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >David Rivera, 25th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2778
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Georgia
            > >> >> >Tom Price, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4501
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Illinois
            > >> >> >Robert Dold, 10th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4835
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Judy Biggert, 13th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3515
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Timothy Johnson, 15th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2371
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Bobby Schilling, 17th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5905
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Aaron Schock, 18th District
            > >> >> >202-225-6201
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Kansas
            > >> >> >Lynn Jenkins, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-6601
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Maryland
            > >> >> >Roscoe Bartlett, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2721
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Michigan
            > >> >> >Dan Benishek, 1st District
            > >> >> >202-225-4735
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Candice Miller, 10th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2106
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Minnesota
            > >> >> >Michele Bachmann, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2331
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Chip Cravaack, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-6211
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Missouri
            > >> >> >Vicky Hartzler, 4th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2876
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Jo Ann Emerson, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4404
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Nevada
            > >> >> >Mark Amodei, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-6155
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Joe Heck, 3rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-3252
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >New Hampshire
            > >> >> >Charles Bass, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-5206
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >New Jersey
            > >> >> >Frank Lobiondo, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-6572
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >John Runyan, 3rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-4765
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >New York
            > >> >> >Robert Turner, 9th District
            > >> >> >202-225-6616
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Michael Grimm, 13th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3371
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Nan Hayworth, 19th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5441
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Chris Gibson, 20th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5614
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Ann Marie Burkle, 25th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3701
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >North Carolina
            > >> >> >Renee Ellmers, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-4531
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Virginia Foxx, 5th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2071
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Sue Myrick, 9th District
            > >> >> >202-225-1976
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Ohio
            > >> >> >Jean Schmidt, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-3164
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >John Boehner, 8th District (Speaker)
            > >> >> >202-225-0600
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Steven LaTourette, 14th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5731
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Steve Stivers, 15th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2015
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >James Renacci, 16th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3876
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Pennsylvania
            > >> >> >Jim Gerlack, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4315
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Patrick Meehan, 7th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2011
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Michael Fitzpatrick, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4276
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Charlie Dent, 15th District
            > >> >> >202-225-6411
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Tim Murphy, 18th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2301
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Todd Platts, 19th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5836
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >South Dakota
            > >> >> >Kristi Noem
            > >> >> >202-225-2801
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Tennessee
            > >> >> >Diane Black, 6th District
            > >> >> >202-225-4231
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Marsha Blackburn, 7th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2811
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Texas
            > >> >> >Ted Poe, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-6565
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Jeb Hensarling, 5th District
            > >> >> >202-225-3484
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Kay Granger, 12th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5071
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Lamar Smith, 21st District (Judiciary Chairman)
            > >> >> >202-225-4236
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Francisco Canseco, 23rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-4511
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Virginia
            > >> >> >Eric Cantor, 7th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2815
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Washington
            > >> >> >Jaime Herrera Beutler, 3rd District
            > >> >> >202-225-3536
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 5th District
            > >> >> >202-225-2006
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Dave Reichert, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-7761
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >West Virginia
            > >> >> >Shelley Moore Capito, 2nd District
            > >> >> >202-225-2711
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Wisconsin
            > >> >> >Reid Ribble, 8th District
            > >> >> >202-225-5665
            > >> >> > 
            > >> >> >Wyoming
            > >> >> >Cynthia Lummis (At-Large)
            > >> >> >202-225-2311
            > >> >> >--------------------------------------
            > >> >> >The main switchboard will connect you to any congressman: 202-224-3121
            > >> >> >
            > >> >> >
            > >> >> >
            > >> >>
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >


          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.