Roundup

Dem Pol Explains Why Women Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Themselves From Rapists – Now that’s a war on women.  If a Republican would have said those things he would have been appropriately skewered.  Yet this guy is getting a pass.  Do they think women are capable of defending themselves and making choices or not?

—

How China Plans to Wipe Out House Churches – persecution appears to be getting even worse there.

—

From the I am not making this up category: Massachusetts Education Policy Mandates Allowing Boys in Girls’ Restrooms.  Yep, this is what “same-sex marriage” and political correctness will get you.  You wish the quotes in the article were part of some overdone parody, but they are real.

The Massachusetts Commissioner of Education has released an outline of its new school policy regarding gender equality, mandating that boys be allowed to use girls restrooms and locker rooms — and vice versa — if they contend that they prefer to identify with the opposite gender.

The 11-page document, written by Mitchell Chester, is stated to be in response to a gender identity law that was passed last July in the state.

“This guidance is intended to help school and district administrators take steps to create a culture in which transgender and gender nonconforming students feel safe, supported, and fully included, and to meet each school’s obligation to provide equal educational opportunities for all students, in compliance with G.L. c. 76, §5 and the state regulations,” it states.

As part of the outline, entitled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity, Chester explains that students need to be permitted to use whichever bathroom or locker room they wish. He states that as long as the child asserts that they would rather identify with the  opposite gender, they should have the access that they desire.

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” Chester states. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.’”

Hat tip: The Bumbling Genius

—

Christian Arrested for Speaking Against Homosexuality – coming soon to a country near you.  What is even more ridiculous is that the debate hinges on whether he said something loudly or not, or in his sermon or not.  Sadly, that means they already lost the major battle.  It shouldn’t matter legally if he yelled it or not.  Speech is free or not.

 

A Christian man preaching in the street in Cumbria, England, was arrested by a homosexual police officer after he listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in the Bible. He was locked up for seven hours and charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress,” according to The Examiner.

Dale McAlpine, 42, said he has been preaching in his hometown of Cumbria for years. On April 20, he was handing out leaflets when a woman engaged him in a private debate. During the conversation, McAlpine said he believed homosexuality went against the Word of God. After the conversation, a police support community officer, who identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police, told McAlpine he could be arrested for using homophobic language.

After the conversation, McAlpine got on a stepladder and preached a 20-minute sermon, in which he says he did not mention homosexuality. However, after the sermon, a number of police gathered and arrested him for using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act, which was originally created to deal with soccer hooligans.

Officers claimed McAlpine was speaking in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others during his conversation with the woman. McAlpine said he used a quiet voice.

—

Teen lost parts of both legs after failed abortion: pursues wrestling dream anyway – great story!

—

Poll Worker Melowese Richardson Apparently Cast Six Votes for Obama

“Yes, I voted twice,” Richardson told WCPO-TV. “I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

Authorities also are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people, too, for a total of six votes in the 2012 presidential election.

For every Obamunist who publicly admits to voter fraud, there are tens of thousands either not quite dumb enough or too busy watching the massive, extravagantly expensive televisions favored by welfare recipients.

As Obama voters were casting multiple ballots, Romney voters had theirs thrown out. In the opposite corner of the state, 21 Cleveland districts recorded not a single vote for Romney.

That’s how elections work in a country that has been “fundamentally transformed” into a second-rate banana republic. Happy now, libs?

—

How Do We Break the Cycle of Higher Tuition and More Debt? — Subsidies for college funding make it more expensive, not less.  Too many people drop out who should have never been there to begin with.  We’d be much better off without the “everyone should go to college” mantra.  There is nothing wrong – and many things right – about more focus on trade schools.

—

When “same-sex marriage” becomes the law

• Religious liberty and freedom of conscience (i.e., the freedom to oppose homosexuality) will be repressed by the state in the name of “gay rights”; Illinois has already experienced this under our “Civil Unions” law [see the case of the Walders' bed-and-breakfast in Paxton, IL].  Despite the current bill being amended to protect churches and religious institutions, business owners — even devout Christians — who cater to weddings (such as banquet hall owners and photographers) could be forced to use their facilities or expertise to celebrate homosexual “marriages”;
• Liberal teachers, especially in public schools, will be emboldened to promote homosexual relationships to students in the classroom; homosexual teachers will be given a platform to discuss their “marriages” and to model homosexuality as normal, natural and good to students. Parents will have a harder time stopping the promotion of homosexuality in schools;
• Homosexual “sex ed” will gain ground in Illinois schools. Under the radical egalitarian idea that all relationships are morally “equal” and worthy of marriage, “safer gay sex” will be taught non-judgmentally alongside (normal) heterosexual sex. “Abstinence until marriage” (which regrettably is not the norm but only the ideal for most Illinois health classrooms) would apply to homosexual- and bisexual- as well as “straight” students — despite the reality that all homosexual sex is inherently immoral.  High-risk and unnatural practices like anal sex will be mainstreamed in our schools. (Could teaching the truth that sex between men is linked disproportionately to HIV and various sexually-transmitted diseases lead to charges of “anti-gay discrimination”?) And deviant lesbian sex will be taught for girls who in the future might “marry” a woman.
• Businessmen will be forced to recognize and subsidize their employees’ immoral same-sex “marriages”; a form of this is already happening under Illinois’ “Civil Unions” law;
• Society will be corrupted as unequal things are treated as equal; children will be further confused as the law (which is a teacher, as the saying goes) creates a Brave New Morality that officially “weds” sinful, unnatural and changeable behavior to the noble and life-sustaining institution of marriage;
• Homosexual activists will be energized to use the homosexual “marriage” law to pressure citizens to approve of their lifestyle and step up their crusade to stigmatize, demonize and discredit pro-family Christians and moral opponents of homosexuality.  Groups like AFTAH that embrace wholesome, godly morality will be vilified as “hateful and bigoted.” And, as we have witnessed in Massachusetts, the push for ever more extreme “LGBT rights” would be propelled by enactment of “same-sex marriage” — including “transgender” activism in schools.
• Legalized homosexual “marriage” will help “normalize” homosexual adoption, thus consigning greater numbers of innocent children to be raised in households that are motherless or fatherless by design.

—

The President of the United States, in some of his rare votes in the Illinois Senate, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act three times. He knew what it was about, and he spoke out against it.  This is who was elected as our President. 

—

Newtown Shooter Picked School As It Was The “Easiest Target” – all the laws being proposed will take away guns from law-abiding citizens, leave them in the hands of criminals, and do nothing to prevent deaths like those in Newtown.

Technorati Tags: Religion,Christianity,politics,pro-life

Responding to religious pro-choice arguments

Pro-choice arguments by religious types, many of whom claim the name of Christ, are generally similar to those offered by pro-choicers.  Nearly all of them ignore the innocent but unwanted human being destroyed by abortion.  The difference with the religious types is that they insist that God is also pro-legalized, unrestricted abortion.

Here’s a prime example by a false teacher named Chuck Currie, who preaches at both UCC and UMC denominations: People Of Faith Must Defend Choice.

The title itself is a tipoff: As usual, pro-choicers can’t finish a sentence.  A choice to do what?  Where to go to college, whom to marry, what career to choose?  Of course not.  He means “People of faith must defend the choice to kill an innocent but unwanted human being.”  Sounds different, doesn’t it?

Todd Akin’s recent comments about rape were reprehensible

Hey, that’s what Mitt Romney and countless other Republican leaders said!  Welcome to the club.

- and so is the GOP platform, modeled after legislation put forth by Akin and Paul Ryan that would ban all abortions…even in the case of rape – but it is clear that Akin isn’t alone.

Just because Akin said one dumb thing doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to protect innocent but unwanted human beings from being destroyed.

Chuck goes on to insist that women can get pregnant from rape, which is what all of Akin’s critics concede.  The irony is that Chuck was acting as if his side had a monopoly on science, when they are the ones who ignore the scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.

And Chuck seemed oddly hostile to the children of rapists and fights aggressively for the right to kill them.  I’d entertain the death penalty for the rapists, but I can’t see how that is just for their children.

Abortion is often used to hide the crimes of rape and incest. If they really care about rape, then they should protest Planned Parenthood and how they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking.

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has long maintained that:

Whereas, women and men must make decisions about unplanned or unwanted pregnancies that involve their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and …

Note how they ignore the well-being of the unborn human being.  Just because killing a human being appears to improve the well-being of another human being it still isn’t justified.

Whereas, abortion is a social justice issue, both for parents dealing with pregnancy and parenting under highly stressed circumstances, as well as for our society as a whole; …

That sentence is gibberish.  First, it doesn’t define “social justice.”  Did the government give unwanted artificial insemination to these women?  What injustice made people have sex?  Being relatively poor compared to those in your country (not to mention being simultaneously very wealthy compared to the rest of the planet) is not an excuse to kill unwanted human beings.

And what could more unjust than destroying an innocent human being merely because she is unwanted?

Does parenting under “highly stressed circumstances” justify killing children outside the womb?  Of course not. So why is it valid inside the womb?

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Sixteenth General Synod:

affirms the sacredness of all life, and the need to protect and defend human life in particular;

That is the biggest and most disingenuous lie of all.  Again, it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization, so under no circumstances can they claim to “affirm the sacredness of all life” while justifying the destruction of over  3,000 lives in the U.S. each day.

Worse yet, these people advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions, which means they think that one of our problems is that there aren’t enough unwanted human beings destroyed each day.  And they claim Jesus is on their side!

encourages persons facing unplanned pregnancies to consider giving birth and parenting the child, or releasing the child for adoption, before abortion;

That is where they talk in circles.  They want to act as if abortion is sort of bad — not bad enough to be illegal, but bad enough to want to consider other options.  But if it doesn’t kill innocent human beings, why would they prefer other options?

upholds the right of men and women to have access to adequately funded family planning services,

Watch out for their deadly euphemisms like “family planning” services.  If you are pregnant, then that human being is part of your family.  Killing her doesn’t change that.

and to safe, legal abortions as one option among others; . . . People of faith must stand up and defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions.

Another deadly phrase: “health care decisions.”  That is right up there with “reproductive rights,” but remember that abortion kills a human being that has been reproduced.

 It shouldn’t be left up to Todd Akin, Paul Ryan or other politicans.

The lives of the unborn shouldn’t be left up to fake Christians like Chuck, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc.

It is morbidly ironic that Chuck’s most frequently quoted verse is from Matthew 25: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.”  Yet he opposes any restrictions to abortions and thinks we need more of them via taxpayer-funding.

Finally, consider how this is one of the rare topics where Liberals don’t play the race card (there is a recent notable exception that I’ll post about separately).  Why is that?  Perhaps because the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites, and for Hispanics it is two times that of whites.  And they know that taxpayer-funded abortions would increase those rates.  Actively supporting policies that kill minorities at such incredibly higher rates seems kinda . . . I don’t know . . . racist.

Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3:15).  False teachers like Chuck deny the divinity of Jesus (and therefore the Trinity), the exclusivity of Jesus (He is the only way to salvation and they teach the opposite), the authority and accuracy of scripture, and so much more.  Their position on abortion is just one more example of them being wolves in sheep’s clothing.

People of real faith should be anti-abortion.

Boomerang.

So the Democrats are going to run with the “Akin’s gaffe applies to all Republicans even though almost 100% have denounced it” theme at their convention and they are going to trot out Bill Clinton to speak there and in swing states?  Please feel free to remind people of the following:

• A President who abused his power to have sex with an intern doesn’t make the best pro-women role model — especially when he was in the process of completely destroying her before he found out about the dress.
• Just because he was President in the 90′s doesn’t mean he gets credit for everything good that happened then.  Remember that two of his better moves — welfare reform and NAFTA — were more Conservative than Liberal and that the Republican Congress stopped him from doing a lot damage with healthcare reform and more.  He should send New Gingrich a thank-you note every year.  Oh, and there was that little thing called the PC Revolution / Internet Bubble that did marvelous things for the economy in general and tax revenues in particular.  Clinton got the bubble and Bush got the damage when it burst.  But I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton.
• If Democrats really care about rape, then they should whale on people like Whoopi  Goldberg who said basically the same thing as Akin, and they should really pounce on people like accused rapist Bill Clinton.
• Clinton was (is?) a serial adulterer.  Tell me again how that is pro-women?
• Even Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was on record saying that, “I don’t want my daughter near him.“
• Democrats love abortion so much that they will ignore all the horrible things Clinton means for women as long as he lets them kill their unborn children.
• If Obama is so pro-”equal pay,” why are women underpaid in his White House?
• If the Democrats are so pro-women, why don’t they oppose gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which crush and dismember females for the sole reason that they are unwanted for being female?  It is the ultimate misogyny, fully supported by the Left.
• Remind them of Al Franken’s jokes about raping reporter Leslie Stahl.
• Remind them that unemployment has been worse for women and blacks under the Obama administration.
• If they really care about rape, then ask them why they don’t protest Planned Parenthood for systematically hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking.  The audio and video evidence against them is overwhelming.  Start by asking them, “Are all rapes pretty much equally bad, as Akin’s critics have noted?  OK, so let’s talk about Planned Parenthood . . .”
• Also, ask them how it qualifies as pro-women to cheer at the funding losses of the Komen Foundation just because they dared to cut a tiny fraction of Planned Parenthood’s funding.
• Pretty much anything you can mention about Ted Kennedy should be effective as well.

Don’t let the Left get away with whitewashing Clinton and their anti-women policies.  Make their claims boomerang on them just like the silly dog issue (yeah, Romney had his on the roof of his car, but Obama ate a dog).  And then there’s the latest “Oh, the humanity” reaction that Romney made a birth certificate quip.  Somehow that is unacceptable, unlike accusing your opponent of being a cancer-causing felon and abandoning tradition to make waves during his convention.

The war on women – yet pandering to Islam.

Watch how Akin’s comments are treated versus similar gaffes

Senate candidate Todd Akin said some garbled and erroneous things about rape and abortion and has since clarified them.  It appears that he was trying to distinguish between statutory rape and the more violent form, but he used the unfortunate and false term of “legitimate” to describe the latter.  He obviously wasn’t trying to say that some rapes were legitimate in the sense of being acceptable, but that isn’t how the media and the Left are playing it.  If anything, he was implying that statutory rapes were less severe.

His broader point of defending the children of rapists from death and destruction was lost.

While Romney and Ryan were quick to do the politically expedient thing in distancing themselves from Akin, I’m disappointed that their response was an endorsement of abortion in the case of rape.  I would have preferred the following:

We disagree with Akin’s botched descriptions of “legitimate rape,” of course, because he knows and we know there is no such thing.

But we agree that as awful as any type of rape is, it is never a justification for killing the innocent human being who was conceived by the rape.  Killing the unborn does not undo the rape.

We also want to note that statutory rape is still rape, and that Planned Parenthood has a long and detailed history of systemically hiding those atrocities.  If elected, one of our first acts will be to investigate them and defund them so that victims of statutory rape and sex trafficking will be protected and that your tax dollars will not support the protection of their abusers.

If we had journalists who were even remotely unbiased, they’d do the following:

1. Report on the statutory rape and sex trafficking cover-ups at Planned Parenthood.
2. Give more attention to the FRC shooting, where a pro-gay person — apparently fueled by the ironic hate speech of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Left in general — planned to shoot those who hold the same views about marriage that Barrack Obama did until a few months ago.  They were barely reporting on this story as it was.  Now it will disappear completely.
3. Note that Akin is obviously not pro-rape.  He just misspoke in a very bad way.
4. The current President defended infanticide.
5. Note that the gaffes of Biden weren’t mistakes (reporting on that will disappear today as well

When this topic comes up I hope that pro-lifers will be quick to point out that all rapes are evil and that killing the children conceived in rapes is also wrong.  Ask pro-choicers if they oppose all rapes, and if so, why aren’t they alarmed that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just misspeak about rapes, as Akin did, but they systematically cover them up?

Joe Paterno liked Joe Paterno. A lot.

He liked him so much that he looked the other way on a serial child rapist even when the guy was caught in the act. But contacting the authorities might have affected the reputation of Joe’s program and put his friend in jail.

Sure, Joe told his boss, but that was it.  What if it was murder instead of rape?  Would he have just notified his boss?  Really, how hard is to press 3 digits on a phone to call the police?

I’m glad that Penn State has fired those involved, including Paterno.

I’m surprised that the students rioted in defense of Paterno.  Really, kids?  The Ohio State coach was fired over what was, relatively speaking, akin to stealing a paper clip.

Sadly, those kids have probably already been victimized a second time if their abuse led them to question their sexuality, as is often the case.  The Leftists will insist that they were “born that way” and steer them from the treatment and care that could help them heal from the abuse.

There is a timeless lesson here about finishing strong and doing the right thing even if it costs you.  Joe Paterno won’t be remembered for decades of winning and the most all-time victories.  He’ll be remembered as a selfish man who put his desires over the protection of victims of child rape.  Who knows how many more victims there were because of the cover-up?

How Herman Cain should have answered the abortion questions

Image via Wikipedia

I believe that Herman Cain is authentically pro-life and that he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution properly.  But he tried to get too political in answering questions about abortion from Piers Morgan.

Please see How I wish the abortion-for-rape debate would go for a simple and effective way to navigate through the rape and incest exception questions.  This works whether you are being interviewed by a “gotcha” journalist or just having a conversation with a friend.

Pro-lifers need to quit apologizing for their views and start being more consistent.  This is not that complicated.  The unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  That is a scientific fact.  They shouldn’t be killed because they are unwanted or as punishment for a crime someone else committed.

Also see ‘Controversy’ Over: National Right to Life Vouches for Cain’s Pro-Life Bona Fides where Stacy McCain advises how to navigate these questions.

These clinics should merge with Planned Parenthood

See Three Louisiana abortion clinics cited for failure to report child rape – Jill Stanek.  They had a host of irregularities, and I’m glad that the Louisiana authorities found them.

. . . So this abortion mill has NEVER reported ANY suspected child rapes to Louisiana authorities.

That is sickening.  What kind of monsters hide suspected child rapes?

Other findings at Causeway:

• One of the “Physician[s],” a term I always use loosely when speaking of abortionists, “had restrictions on his medical license that did not allow him to perform deliveries.” So this guy has committed such gross malpractice in the past that Louisiana authorities have banned him from delivering patients.
• Patient confidentiality was lax: Aborting mothers had to sign in with first and last names that others could see.
• Ack: The vaginal ultrasound probe was not cleaned properly between uses.

Uh, what happened to that sound bite about abortions being “safe?” The link has even more example of what these clinics did wrong.

Why are abortion mills persistently and perpetually found to neglect their patients, subjecting them to significant health and safety risks?

Because Democrats will do anything to avoid restricting abortions.

They would fit in well with the Planned Parenthood model, because PP hides rape on a regular basis.  They’ve been caught so many times over a period of years on audio and video.

Defund Planned Parenthood now.

Once again, the evil and deadliness of political correctness

Political correctness is the adult version of Jr. High peer pressure: People say things they know are false because they are afraid of being unpopular.  That would be irritating enough if the consequences weren’t so severe and often deadly.  See Muslim Gangs Drug & Rape Children All Over The UK for a recent example.

Also see Political correctness is deadly once again.

Yea for sanity!

See New Hampshire lawmakers pass abortion parental notification bill over veto.

How hopeful is this? The New Hampshire legislature yesterday overrode Gov. John Lynch’s veto of a bill that requires abortionists to notify parents of minors 48 hours before conducting the procedure, The New York Times reports:

The House overrode the veto by a 266-102 vote; the Senate vote was 17-7. “Granite Staters believe in more parental involvement, not less,” the House speaker, William O’Brien, said in a statement.

Seems to me stakeholder “notification,” whether in personal, financial or political matters, is pretty commonly recognized as both polite and important. And don’t parents have a high stake in the health and well-being of their children (not to mention their grandchildren)? Obviously, 266 New Hampshire house members and 17 state senators think so. The legislatures of thirty-six other states thought so, too: New Hampshire becomes the 37th state to enact such a law.

What is amazing is that anyone could vote against parental notification laws.  Some oppose it because it could be due to rape or incest or because the parents might harm the child, but those are all lousy excuses.

If the parents are abusive, report it to the authorities. But don’t take the girl to kill her unborn child.   And keep in mind that the logic that “they might get abused” is never used to say that parents shouldn’t be notified of their child’s grades, bad behavior, arrests, etc.

If it was a case of rape, then go to the police! Why on earth wouldn’t the parents be notified if their child was raped?  Just because Planned Parenthood and the like hide rape doesn’t mean that schools should.

If the incest was by a father or step-father, then go to the police! In those cases incest is just a different way of saying rape.

Students literally can’t take a single Advil in most schools with the parents bringing an original bottle and a note to the school, yet the abortion lobby thinks the same kids should be able to have a risky surgery that kills an innocent human being without the parents being told.

Yea for the 2nd Amendment!

See Why The Constitution Matters: Woman Shoots, Kills Would-Be Rapist

A thug broke into a suburban Atlanta woman’s home, and attacked her at knifepoint at 6:30 a.m. while she was in the shower. A struggle ensued, during which the woman was injured. Eventually, though, she was able to get her hands on her .22, and shortly thereafter, the woman pumped 9 rounds into her assailant. He staggered outside and was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Morals of the story:

• The Second Amendment ain’t about hunting.
• You can’t assume the police  will be there when you need them.
• If you’re a woman and you live alone, you should buy a gun and learn how to protect yourself with it. (Actually, everyone should do this, but single women especially.)

I will never, ever vote for a candidate who would have preferred that this woman get raped (i.e. any candidate who opposes guns in the hands of law abiding citizens).

If this woman lived in Canada, Australia, Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia, and much of the rest of the world, she would have had two choices:

• Get raped at knifepoint (and probably murdered at knifepoint afterwards)
• Get arrested and imprisoned for owning and using a handgun

This reminds me of a friend of ours who turned someone in to CPS for sexually abusing an infant.  The perpetrator correctly inferred that it was her and called with death threats and stood outside her yard in a menacing way.  I will always want to protect the right of someone like her to go get a gun that day.

I also know of someone who got death threats from a former employee who was arrested for theft.  The criminal’s threats weren’t deemed sufficiently dangerous by a judge so he wouldn’t even issue a restraining order.  I definitely want that victim to be able to get a gun if he wants.

Don’t miss Modesty Week at the Haemet blog

See The LMA/RdL Modesty Countdown: Six Days and Slutwalks at Haemet.  Long-time uber-commenter Roxanne is doing a series leading up to a radio show she’ll be doing about modest dress.  It is in response to this:

The latest anti-modesty modern folly: Slutwalks. Boston had one the other week, featuring a parade of half-naked young women who were empowered to fight the patriarchy by doing what all chauvinists wish they would do: take off more clothes.  Allegedly, the Slut Walks started because a Toronto police officer said that women should not dress like sluts in order to not be victimised.  I say “allegedly” because the police officer certainly said it, and it’s certainly a silly thing to say (although not nearly as offensive as these women think), but because this whole thing seems like an excuse to engage in the “I have sex, therefore, I’m an intellectual” mentality.  Or to protest.

Girls going around half naked to shame chauvinists?  Oh, yeah, chauvinists just hate that!  That’ll show ‘em.

Sean Hannity tackled this head-on by bringing Rebecca St. James into the studio to talk about modesty and Tamara Holder to talk about how women shouldn’t be ashamed of their bodies:

ST. JAMES: Tamara, I mean, what are women saying by dressing provocatively? I mean, I think they are saying I’m easy. I’m asking you to look at me as a sexual object rather than a woman worthy of respect. I think these women that are marching and saying I should be able to wear whatever I want –

HOLDER: There’s nothing wrong with looking like a sexual object.

ST. JAMES: OK, do they want to be treated like a sexual object all the time?

HOLDER: No, you can look attractive –

I heard Rebecca St. James just got married.  Did you ever hear her song, “Wait for me?”  Just heard it the other day and was thinking of what a great message it had.

The “women shouldn’t be ashamed of their bodies” argument seems like a false dichotomy.  You can be proud of your body without showing it to anyone and everyone.

Any guy who commits date-rape (or any kind of rape) is 100.00% responsible and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  But that doesn’t mean that certain behaviors won’t increase the odds of date-rape happening.  When you think of how many things people are cautioned to do (or not do)  in order to avoid being victims of all sorts of crimes, the previous statements should be self-evident and uncontroversial.