Latest Posts
Showing posts with label vawa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vawa. Show all posts

Feminists encouraging male extermination in Sweden.
Filed Under the "No Woman is EVER Violent" fantasy label. From A feminist Male Extermination "play" in Sweden.

Greg's excellent article, which I was not aware of when I did my previous post, reflects precisely the same implications, female behaviour and in its same context. It is the case that females are violent as all the information applicable to that fact has already clearly indicated, there is no avoiding that obvious fact. Copious legislation has been introduced over the last few decades, that has totally ignored the violence that women introduce into the home and into society..

This is of no surprise to anyone except politicians after the "Vagina" vote or the slut-feminist movement. The live in constant denial that it even ever exists. They constantly interfere with the truth and the facts in order to promote their own doctrinal message and that message would never confess that fact, because if they allowed women to be recognised as being violent, that would mean that the entire abuse industry based solely on "women are not violent" would have to undergo a complete and total reassessment and readjustment in their thinking. A complete overhaul of their whole approach to DV and societal violence. Their funds would disappear overnight. They are forced to continue to promote their great lie in order to maintain the taxpayers dollars and all those elite positions, over inflated departments and legislation, they have forced their respective countries to establish. They are hanging on for their dear lives and their outlandish incomes..

They will blink before we ever will..

How embarrassed are they now ?. They have generated that lie to such a degree that it is outstrips their very own "Women do not lie about rape" meme. How obvious an liar would you be and what a sham-faced liar do you have to be, to deny something that is so blatantly obvious, that the majority of the population have already witnessed it at one time or another. Yet they still claim that the situation is totally opposite to what common sense and facts dictates it is. One does wonder how they even live with themselves, let alone with other humans..

VAWA, IMBRA and copious of other legislation such as "Safe at Home", bought into law just brushes aside any mention about female violence and even encourages such behaviour as being in self defense. The slut-feminist claim that a female only EVER uses physical violence/abuse, when she is defending herself (see video in this and previous post) is another example of their total incoherence and deliberate denial of the situation. Even the "White Ribbon" campaign lives in denial as one would expect, when the researchers and other people involved in those scheme/s, have been linked directly to those same radical feminists who organised, attended and spoke at the SCUM Manifesto conference in Perth, Western Australia in 2011 and also participate on that site including Novelist Pamela OShaughnessy, one should and would have to question the sanity, ethics and morality of those those disgusting and shameful individuals..



Bad-Girl

Girls behaving badly

One of the cornerstones of conventional domestic violence dogma is that the victim is never, ever, responsible for violence perpetrated against them.  Rather perpetrators must accept responsibility and be held accountable for their violence.  Statements along these lines are enshrined in the White Ribbon Campaign and Australia’s “Time for Action” Plan to reduce violence against women and their children.

A White Ribbon Campaign fact sheet states:

Myth 4 Some people deserve to be beaten by provoking the violence. Fact : Responsibility for violence must rest solely with the abuser.[1]

As a young intern during one of my first night sifts in the casualty department (ER) I received notification that a young man was being brought in by ambulance after being punched in the head outside one of the local nightclubs. He was said to be unconscious but stable, however on arrival he was in complete cardio respiratory arrest and after almost an hour of vigorous resuscitation attempts could not be revived. Post mortem examination subsequently showed that he had suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a single blow to the head. The story from bystanders was that another male had walked up behind him and punched him once in the back of the head; there was no apparent provocation.

I learned several lessons that night including, the potential for a single well placed blow to be fatal, the dangers of alcohol fuelled violence on the nightclub strip – and never trust the paramedics radio alert to be accurate. In those days most of the brawling was male on male.  But trends in more recent times show mixed violence and female on female violence becoming more common.
In 2010 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research released a paper “Female Offending: Has their been an increase” [2] found that

Using police person of interest (POI) data, this brief considers trends in offending by females and juvenile females over the 10 years to June 2009. Over this period, the number of females proceeded against by police increased by 15 per cent, whereas the number of male offenders remained stable.
They also noted a much greater rise in the rate of female juvenile offenders 1/3-increase verses a 1/10 increase for male juvenile offenders.

There are thousands of video clips on Youtube showing drunken violent women to which I recently added this one: http://youtu.be/7qq8Z3L6UwE It’s a recording from a popular Australian evening show called A Current Affair.
Three young women, two of them mothers of young children, were recorded on a mobile phone drunk, violent and out of control outside a nightclub after closing time.  The general community attitude to this was one of disgust at their behavior. However the girls wanted to “give their side of the story,” and appeared on national television to tell us  “they were provoked by a group of drunken men.”

One of the girls explains “I remember crossing the road, and some guy yelled out you’re a fat s(Beeped out – presumably “slut”), and then I walked over and started yelling at him and stuff, and I think that’s when it started, all the troubles.”
It’s not quite clear what she means by “and stuff” but presumably it means a physical element added to “yelling at him.”  Suffice it to say she could have simply walked away rather than crossing a road to confront a group of men and start a fight.
The girls claim “They hit us, they spat on us, they called us names.”  Yet whilst there is lots of shouting and name calling to be heard during the video there is no sign of any male hitting any of the girls, only their relentless aggressive attacks.  Despite being dragged away by security these girls continued to run back into the fray on the attack.
One even walked up behind a male who was facing away from her and posing no threat and viciously wacked him on the back of the head with her high heeled shoe.  That scene sent a shiver down my spine and reminding me of the case I encountered as an intern. She said in the interview that perhaps he did not deserve a heel in the head but “he did deserve a punch in the head.”
When quizzed by the interviewer if this was indicative of their usual behavior the girls admitted, “We’ve been in fights but nothing like this,” so this was not their first involvement in violence.  Further the girls admitted to consuming a large amount of alcohol, and feeling “very angry.”
We just wanted to hurt someone because they were hurting us.
When asked if they were sorry for their behavior all agreed they were “embarrassed” but it would appear that they were more embarrassed about being recorded and exposed then by their actual violence, which they claim their victims deserved.  “I’m not sorry, I’m not sorry to those guys, I’m sorry to my family but not to the guys.”
One of the girls has no hesitation in stating for the camera “No guy should hit a girl, I think it’s disgusting,” yet their recorded behavior show they clearly believe it is ok for women to be violent toward men.
One of the girls offered this gem “what if their mothers saw them behaving like that towards girls?” which had me bemused. Surely she meant what if their fathers saw them behaving like this toward girls?  But then it hit me; apparently single motherhood and fatherlessness are now common enough to considered the norm.
I don’t like being judged as a mother. They don’t know the full story about everything, like we were provoked and they wont know till they watch this.
If this is the view of young mothers it does not bode well for the chances of our current generation of children to become civil, non-violent members of society.
Another recent trend of concern is that of mothers encouraging their daughters to fight in the schoolyard or similar circumstances.  There have been several well-publicized cases in Australia and the US including this one where the mother was charged with child abuse. http://youtu.be/G9chmFG50E4

So what is the message from all this?  Abusers must always be accountable for their violence except if the abuser is a woman and they were provoked to violence by a man.  There is an increasing trend for women to be physically violent and encourage such violence in their offspring, a trend that can only worsen, as the mother headed household becomes a social norm.
US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan commented in the mid sixties  “A community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.”
We should add to this that girls who lack the guiding influences of a father and who are encouraged by mothers (who don’t seem to understand all violence is wrong) are adding to that chaos.

[1]http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/uploads/media/Fact%20Sheet%2010%20Ten%20Common%20Myths%20and%20Misconceptions%202009.pdf
[2] http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB46.pdf/$file/BB46.pdf

Written by Greg Canning


4 Posts in Total See Them »
Greg is father, Family Physician and medical educator located in North Queensland, with interests in mens rights and exposing the corrupt domestic abuse industry.



Here is a golding opportunity to make your vote count in regards to the renewal of the VAWA legislation. We have already torn VAWA to shreds for the biased, bigoted and discriminatory load of absolute rubbish that has been ever written. It has been used to grant billions of dollars to the slut-feminist hate movement and given rights to outsiders, such as Mexican females, the right to falsely accuse any American citizen and thereby be granted automatic citisenship. Examples of which I have shown in quite a few articles on this blog. VAWA has to go as it protects and promotes the slut-feminist hate movement while removing the fundamentals rights of all men in the US..

From Mensactivism..

U.S. News & World Report has taken note of the controversy around the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act - VAWA - (s.1925), making it the focus of Debate Club. Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. They ask: Should the Violence Against Women Act Be Reauthorized?
As of this writing, the entry in first place is: "NO: Violence Against Women Act Is a Totalitarian Violation of Democracy" by Laura Wood. In second place is "NO: The Violence Against Women Act Should Outrage Decent People" by Janice Shaw Crouse. Following that are a few entries supporting the reauthorization.
You could read these two thoughtful articles explaining why Senator Leahy's VAWA misses the mark, or you could read all of the entries, pro and against VAWA. We encourage that.
But we also understand how valuable your time is. So if you only have a moment and you want to make a difference, I'll explain how you can do that.
Go to the debate here: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-violence-against-women-act-be-reauthorized. Scroll down until you see two 'NO' opinions. Click on the UP buttons next to Laura's and Janice's entries. That's it!
If you have another moment, you could click the down buttons next to all of the 'yes' entries.
Thank you for your continued dedication, and for your patience. I believe we are starting to see the results of our slow and steady efforts. Isn't it just wonderful?
Sincerely,
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org



To refer to slut-feminists as mentally unstable as well as being incapable of rational thought is just stating the bleeding obvious. One does not even have to bother to demonstrate that as the facts are already out there and witnessed on a daily basis..

The sad and sorry outcome that slut-feminism has generated is apparently unclear to even themselves but we are here to point out the obvious, it's what we do. Presents the facts and just allow you to make up your own mind..

Desperation is setting in as the slut-feminist movement have no other wars to fight excepts to demonstrate exactly what a bunch of self-serving, self-centered and dysfunctional human beings they really are. All we do is sit back and watch this denial function, wallow in it's immaturity and in it's pathetic futile behaviour as they manufacture even more false information and exaggerations in order to justify their childish behaviour. It really has become a comedy event of gigantic proportions and it's one to watch just to witness what they will invent next to demonstrate their cognitive dissonance..

Once it was only children who behaved in this fashion, now it's adult females and their enablers taking up that cudgel..
Mentally sick American feminists


Long Island Examiner (NY) - Monday, March 15, 2010
Author: Michael Schmitt

During the second world war, American women were introduced to the workplace while men went overseas to fight in yet another war to end all wars. The story goes that this is what began women's "liberation" from the alleged male slave-owners. While American men were getting their guts and brains blown out in the Pacific and Europe, the poor American woman had to stay and labor in factories. During the 1960's feminists demanded "equality" and allegedly received it in the form of legislation. Since then, VAWA and other laws have escalated American women to a position where they have more rights than men in every area.

Men have become afraid to say the wrong things to women or face the wrath of false accusations or saying something inappropriate. It is near impossible to distinguish a normal woman or a psycho-feminist. A woman can act normal but flip out at the slightest provocation. Men can not treat women as women because that is considered sexist. They can not treat women as men because that is considered offensive. A woman can get a man fired from his job or arrested for rape with nothing more than a mere allegation. As a result, men play it safe and treat women as feminazis; something between a non-entity and a rat. By pretending to respect them, and secretly mocking them, men can survive the assault of feminists. Rather than gaining more respect and equality for their gender, feminists have only lowered their status of women in the eyes of many men.

American feminists are distrusted and cannot trust. They are paranoid and schizophrenic. Their level of mental illness increases with the power they gain. They become disillusioned when they realize that equality does not come through acts of congress but through mutual respect which they are incapable of. They become increasingly paranoid as they begin to suspect what men really think of them. These feminists turn to food, alcohol and drugs to compensate for this psychological imbalance. Divorce and depression result. And of course, they blame men.

Feminists are quick to attack men in everything they do. They criticize a man if he respects traditional values and yet are upset that men do not hold things like marriage as sacred. Men are expected to be slaves. If a man speaks his mind, he is scorned and treated as a sexist or demeaning to woman. If a feminist speaks her mind, she is just acting as an equal.

Feminists create two types of men; abusers and wimps; in their minds. The abusers are the 1% of men who act out violently to the bizarre laws and rules created by feminists. The wimps are the other 99% who go along with it externally but resent it internally. Ironically, feminists are drawn more to abusers than wimps. One of the greatest selling books of all time is F.J. Sharke's "How to be the Jerk Women Love" where the author accurately describes that women worship "jerks" over "nice guys". And no one disputes this. Even women admit that all they ever meet are jerks. Yet 99 % of the guys are nice and only 1 % are jerks but it is those 1% that get the women and the "wimps" are the ones that are usually falsely accused of being abusers.

Nice guys have given up on dating American women so they go overseas to find mates. Naturally, feminists are opposed to this idea and got congress to prevent American men from meeting foreign women through international dating agencies through VAWA under a law called the "International Marriage Brokers Act" (IMBRA). This law prevents men from meeting foreign women the way a regular dating agency such as MATCH.COM does. IMBRA issues a propaganda package that foreign women get that describe American men as abusers. Once receiving this package, most foreign women refuse to meet the American men. The American men are stuck with these sick American feminists. As a last resort, American men are increasingly moving overseas and becoming expatriates in other countries.

Men are the minority in the United States and typically, the minority group is oppressed by the majority. But we have a Constitution that is supposed to protect the rights of all people.

It is time that VAWA and IMBRA are repealed or ruled Unconstitutional. VAWA increases violence against men and women; it does not decrease it. IMBRA is a violation of free speech and human dignity. Governments duty is to treat all people equal in the eyes of the law; it does not have the right to allow any race, gender or group of people to subjugate and oppress anyone else.



VAWA is the one single document that has declared war on men, this one single piece of legislation has over the last couple of decades determined that discrimination and sexism will be the order of the day against all men plus be the standard behaviour. This document promotes hate and violence against all men and boys under the claim that it is to stop "Violence against Women" which is in itself a sexist and discriminatory title as well as action.. 

It is designed to remove the fundamental basic human rights of one sex at the complete and total cost and expense of the other. VAWA is also a funnel that directs a Billion dollars per year to the feminist cause as Phyllis Schlafly states. VAWA has to go..

Day of Reckoning for Violence Against Women Act
Phyllis Schlafly
February 7, 2012

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and also is a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands.
VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as President. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation of which he is most proud.
In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly a billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.
Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.
In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and VAWA doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.
The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and overbroad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance, or merely unpleasant speech.
Feminist recipients of VAWA’s handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who), and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage, and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.
Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.
The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.
About a fourth of divorces involve an allegation of domestic violence, which in many cases is false or without any evidence. Those allegations usually result in the issuance of restraining orders which the Illinois Bar Association has referred to as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
It’s no surprise that VAWA is often referred to as the hate-men law. The attitude of many judges and prosecutors who have been trained by the feminists with VAWA funds was expressed by one New Jersey judge whose extravagant statement was even reported in the New Jersey Law Journal: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”
Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is presented. This usually results in the complete severing of child’s relationship with his father.
VAWA should be completely revised to provide meaningful definitions of domestic violence that are specific enough to identify real victims, to stop the over-criminalization of minor partner discord, to emphasize counseling rather than incarceration, to assure that training programs for prosecutors and judges are objective, to assure accountability by tracking the large flow of taxpayers’ money, to respect fathers’ rights, to inspect shelters to evaluate success and fairness, and to develop programs to address the common problem of mutual partner abuse.
If VAWA is not reformed to respect constitutional rights, it will turn out to be a major embarrassment to all Members of Congress who vote for it.
Source:

A Voice for Men Radio..

Republicans Say No to VAWA!



Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog Talk Radio

As you all are well aware of, feminists are a laugh a minute as they wallow in minutiae. Hugo Schwyzer (womens studies lecturer and Mangina Award winner) claims that feminists are non-violent and that feminists would not touch a hair on your head. This is the level of confusion and denial, these morons have reached. Their endless claims that females are incapable of violence is straight out of the Scum Manifesto cognitive dissonance claims, lunatic and professional psycho Solanas screamed and raged about..

From the RadFemHub..

Mangetout says:"....kill off all the alpha-males
If feminists are NOT violent Hugo, your denial, then what is this all about ?
Lisalyn R. Jacobs charged and arraigned today for assaulting Ben Vonderheide, aka. Daddy Justice At a VAWA Hearing in the Senate Building in Washington D.C.
This male hater, feminist, attacked Ben Vonderheide while he was videoing. He caught that rabid feminist on film. Well done Ben..

This male hater worked on VAWA, which explains why it is so anti male and biased, while it promotes  and funds women only, at all and any cost..


Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice President for Government Relations

Lisalyn JacobsLisalyn R. Jacobs joined Legal Momentum as vice president for government relations in March of 2003. She began her legal career at the National Partnership for Women and Families under the auspices of Georgetown’s Women’s Law & Public Policy Fellowship. Following three years in private practice, she joined the Office of Policy Development of the U.S. Justice Department in 1995 and worked on a number of issues including implementation of the Violence Against Women Act, the welfare reform law, judicial nominations. and affirmative action. She also served as Chief of Staff of the Civil Rights Division, as well as Special Counsel to the Director of the Violence Against Women Office. In May of 2000, she left DOJ and for nearly three years was a civil and human rights consultant on issues ranging from capital punishment to affirmative action, and international human rights. She has testified before congressional committees at both the state and federal levels.
See the assault caught on tape…

Three courageous people fighting the feminist lies and distortions regarding domestic violence. These are people who cannot be ignored and hopefully will have some affect on the blatant sexism and anti-male bias those DV programs now exhibit. The main example that comes to mind is VAWA ofcourse which basically indicates and as the title states, is only interested in Violence against women and that is the only sex who are victims as far as they are concerned and all men and boys can just put up with the abuse their female partners or mothers dish out more often than not, apparently..Link to more on this article which contains six pages in total..Page 2 , Page 3 , Page 4 , Page 5 , Page 6 ..

Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men  
by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., and Erin Pizzey

Abstract
People hit and abuse family members because they can. In today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, law enforcement, courts, and feminist propaganda, women are openly given permission to hit men. Presently 25%-30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male. "Primary aggressor" laws usually result in arrest of the male and ignore research showing 50% of domestic assaults are mutual combat. The woman is thus encouraged to abuse her partner further until finally he will take no more. Such provocation of the human male is dangerous.
Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their fist or an object.
There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women use violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for male abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and to " stop him bothering me." Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-frequently stated reasons by women for their assaults.
Our research shows that a gender-balanced approach to domestic violence is essential in order to reduce both the frequency and severity of such incidents for both men and women. Present laws and practices appear to commonly have the opposite effect.

Why do women hit men?
Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly: "People hit and abuse family members because they can." And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist doctrine, women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as "domestic violence." We are fighting a losing war against family violence until society withdraws permission from women to hit their intimate partners. The problem and causes of female violence must also be recognized and addressed.
It has been suggested that female assaults on males are almost always for reasons of self-defense. Outside of studies that come from clinical samples of women who seek services in domestic violence centers and social service agencies we have not found evidence to support that hypothesis.
Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) have looked at the reasons why women assault from a sample of 978 college women in California. Within a 5-year period, 20%, or 285 of the women surveyed admitted to physical aggression against their male partners. 
There does not seem to be any support in the available data for the feminist proposition that women only use violence against men in self defense. The most-common reasons the women in the Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) study gave for assaulting their male partners included:
• My partner wasn't sensitive to my needs.• I wished to gain my partner's attention.• My partner was not listening to me.
The factor of the male being abusive to the woman was one of the less-frequently stated reasons for the female's assault. 
Fiebert and Gonzales (1997) also asked for more profound reasons as to why the woman had assaulted her male partner. The five leading reasons the women gave to that query were:
• I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don't worry when I become physically aggressive (24%).• I have found that most men have been trained not to hit a woman and therefore I am not fearful of retaliation from my partner (19%).• I believe if women truly are equal to men then women should be able to physically express anger at men (13%).• I learned when growing up that I could be physically aggressive toward my brother and he would not fight back (12%).• I sometimes find when I express my anger physically I become turned on sexually (8%).
In two Australian studies (Sarantakos, 1998, 1999), the most common type of male behaviour that resulted in abuse was a minor violation of household rules.
In Sarantakos' studies the three most common reasons women gave for abuse of their male partners were:
• To resolve the argument.• To respond to family crisis.• To "Stop him bothering me!" 
We are aware of two studies that have asked the questions of assault context and self-defense in the general population.
An English study by Carrado et al. (1996), summarized in Table 2, suggests that ~80% of assaults by wives on their husbands were for reasons other than self-defense. Items C and F in Table 2 were identified as clear examples of self-defense. Note that multiple reasons are often given for the same assault.



Here is the information regarding the VAWA legislation, a law instigated and introduced and assisted by the following..

Despite a successful and highly publicized hearing in support of the Violence Against Women Act on July 19th, the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to take action on VAWA 2005 (S. 1197) before recessing for the month of August. Compelling testimony, given by experts on domestic, dating and sexual violence as well as actor Salma Hayek, spokeswoman for the Avon Foundation, and former NBA player and coach M.L. Carr, Family Violence Prevention Fund board member and President/CEO of WARM2Kids, Inc, urged the Senate to move quickly on VAWA reauthorization. The National Advocacy Center also sent a letter (PDF version) to members of the Senate Judiciary expressing strong support for VAWA 2005 and joined in an interfaith letter (PDF version) emphasizing the importance of continuing to combat violence. However, other business kept the Judiciary Committee from marking up VAWA on the 27th as had been planned. The Senate bill, S. 1197, still continues to gain support, though, with a total of 47 co-sponsors going into the August recess.

On the House side, Representatives Green (R-WI) and Conyers (D-MI) introduced a comprehensive VAWA reauthorization bill (H.R. 2876) on June 14th. The legislation is similar to the Senate version in most respects, but includes some different provisions and funding levels. The legislation currently has 88 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Additional VAWA bills have been introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) (H.R. 3171 - comprehensive Democratic proposal), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) (H.R. 3188 - The Immigrant Victims of Violence Protection Act of 2005), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) (H.R. 3185 - The Security and Financial Empowerment Act)

And here we have someone who took full advantage of that atrocious law to victimise an American Citizen and scheme her way into achieving a green card by making false claims of abuse and rape by riding the system just the way it was designed to be. The entire VAWA program is a gigantic hoax designed primarily to be exploited by women to take advantage of the generosity of the American taxpayer and take them for everything they have to offer..

The Immigration Prostitute Martha Laura Granados
This is story of Martha Laura Granados, an immigrant woman from Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico who abused the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) by pretending to be in love with an American Legal Resident. Martha prostituted herself to him for three years, deceiving him, making him believe her intentions were honest until he married her. She then falsely accused him of Domestic Violence and Rape in order to get to a VAWA funded shelter and file a VAWA self petition to obtain a Green Card.
Martha is now enjoying a vast number of social benefits all paid for by the US tax payer which include free housing, certification, employment, paid relocation and free education for her sons.
…and an express immigration proceedings for a Green Card and US Citizenship for herself, her sons and her relatives. 

The VAWA immigration loop-hole:
The formula is simple: Pretend you're in love with an American citizen or a Legal resident, get them to marry you, then, a few months later start making unsupported accusations of abuse. The accusations will stick, even if completely unsupported by facts. In no time they're on the path to permanent residency and with plenty of help from US taxpayers. The innocent US spouse often pays a heavy price in terms of psychological distress, legal bills, damage to reputation, and in many cases even a criminal record.
Here that saga begins..
I pretended to be in love with Al for three whole years. I repeatedly told Al that I dreamed of being his wife. In return Al treated me like a real wife and took excellent care of me and my sons.
At the end of 2008, having known Al for three years I begged him to marry me. My oldest son had gone back to Mexico and I insisted that I needed to visit him there, and for that I would need legal papers. Al, being the good man he is agreed, but not without a pre-nuptial agreement.
I was upset about the pre-nuptial agreement because it would mean I that would not have any rights to any of his assets, but my main goal was to get the Green Card for myself and my sons. At the end of August 2008 we got married.
I immediately started to provoke him. He said he wasn’t happy being married to me but he promised he would not file for divorce, at least not yet. I had to move quickly. I threatened him and told him  that if he wouldn’t file a petition for a Green Card for me and my sons I would have him arrested. He made me promise that I would not involve the authorities and filed the Green Card petitions for me and my sons.
I knew that our conditional Green Cards were on the way. I waited until we were married  for exactly three months and I took my sons and got to the police station. I filed the first complaint against Al. The police drove me back to Al’s house.
I couple of days later Al filed for divorce. I was served with the divorce papers by the sheriff. I immediately contacted a lawyer. The lawyer explained to me that my only - and best - option was to falsely accuse Al of Domestic Violence.
I began looking for a VAWA funded Domestic Violence shelter. The first couple of shelters I contacted refused to accept me because there had been no physical violence between Al and me.
I finally got in touch with the VAWA service center: The International Women's House, P.O. Box 1327 Decatur, Georgia 30031 Phone: 770-413-5557 Fax: 678-476-6804 
I was then coached by their employee Laura Mora. She told me exactly what I needed to do.
Link..