and while the following link will be ridiculed by the regular nay sayers (because they apparently lack the time or inclination to follow up on sources cited) one finds some rather definitive and unbiased sources.
http://www.lbduk.org/FEMFRAUD.htm
"The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. ... She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.' In plain English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively institutionalizing the radical view of domestic violence as antifemale terrorism by a relentless oppressor class ? men. -- U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000
N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000; NOW claims that VAWA is Gender Neutral and that it provides protection for men and children when a simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children and men.
NOW's LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped to WRITE the VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the language of the bill **specifically** excludes children and is gender biased.
Here is an interesting if undefinitive "study" (Dave ought to love it as it was "peer reviewed")
http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~lhuddy/Sigel_Jenkins.pdf
A second group critizes the movement for having become radicalized and for having been taken over by a particular group, by which they usually understand lesbians. "...And, I don't know, but they've gotten very heavily infiltrated with the homosexual, lesbian community, which I think has kind of distorted a few of their views."
>>AARP, the advocacy group for people over age 50 that opposes diverting Social Security taxes into private accounts, is irked about a new organization with a similar name -- minus one A -- that is advocating the changes. The new group, founded by Republicans, is called Alliance for Retirement Prosperity, or ARP. "Gee, what a coincidence," said John Rother, AARP's policy director. <<
That full story is at AARP upset new group named ARP.
As for the con-man angle? One of their well-known tactics is to "borrow" a well-known and respected group's cachet by chosing a similar name for their own sleazy operation: >>a name similar to a reputable organization's is used -- such as "American Cancer Center" instead of the American Cancer Society.<<
See Telemarketing/Direct Marketing Fraud.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic