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

Feminists Distorting HHS Mandate Debate..

Thank goodness, now you can have a break..
Just some more food for thought regarding the feminists attempt at ensuring more female privileges.This article explains a few other interesting issues. The case that birth control is already readily available at $9 per month or can be obtained, free, is a rather intriguing point as feminists are suggesting that if this privilege is not passed, the planet will face an explosive increase in the population or the other extreme, it's a "War against Women" for the want of a "plan B" option..

Another assumed exaggeration ofcourse and another feminist lie as usual. The other issue is that the option that Obama and his office of harpies in the White House, are making demands for a product that is already covered by insurance. So what is their actual ulterior motive besides trying to force the Catholic Church to go against their own ethics and doctrine. That I would imagine is the real reason for all this carry on and as usual, it opens the door for ever more rights to be removed and destroyed..

Feminists Distorting HHS Mandate Debate

The heated public debate about the HHS mandate requiring employers to cover contraception has brought out the worst in “feminist” organizations. It’s time to blow the whistle: They’ve resorted to creating outright fiction in order to fundraise and fear-monger.  Sadly, upon examination, many of their claims go beyond the usual political spin, to outright untruths that are actually destructive to women’s empowerment.

Lie #1:  Women don't have access to birth control.  This time last year, did you know that American women faced such a crisis in accessing contraception?  No, you didn’t, because there simply is no crisis.  Any woman in the United States can get her hands on birth control.  In fact, as Planned Parenthood points out, 98 percent of all American women who’ve had sex have used contraception.  To get the pill, a woman needs an appointment at her doctor’s office or a local health clinic.  But women can also buy condoms, which are available at practically every drugstore and gas station, as well as at hundreds of public schools in the U.S.

Lie #2:  Contraception is prohibitively expensive.  Many women in the U.S. qualify for free birth control, even without health insurance.  If you don’t qualify for free birth control, here’s one good low-cost option: Wal-mart offers some oral contraceptives at $9 a month.   And the American Pregnancy Association says condoms cost 20¢ to $2.50 each.

Lie #3:  Without the HHS mandate, employers will drop contraceptive coverage.  This one is just plain odd since, as of today – without a mandate in place – 90 percent of employers who offer health insurance offer a plan that covers contraception.  Yes, that's without a mandate forcing them to do so.   Twenty-eight states also already have rules that require employers to cover birth control in the company’s insurance plan, with the statutes varying on what kind of exemption is offered to religious employers.

Obama and the Birthers..

I have never been a fan of Obama as he is just too close to Marxism for me to be comfortable with. He has confirmed my fears by granting high government positions to his fellow marxists as well. That cannot not be for the good of the country, I would have thought.
Marxism is directly opposed to the capital market system which works that well that the communists dictators in China even promoted it, but are now in the process of winding it back if they can. Watch for some interesting activity in China in 2012..

This post may indeed come close to being a "conspiracy theorist dream", which I resist and definitely do not promote. Too many about already. But I have been following the Obama "Birthers"(started by Hillary Clinton) arguments about Obama's right to office, if he is not an actual US citizen and I have found the MSM avoiding any mention of it or just presenting some indifferent commentary on such an important topic.

So for the sake of argument, have a peak at the case in Georgia this week, where the Judge failed to fined against the defendant Barack Hussein Obama, and here is a running commentary on the case which I found rather interesting, to say the least. It is third party assessment and commentary, so it can be taken with a pinch of salt. But interesting just the same..


Thursday,January 26, 2012
OBAMAELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW

ByCraig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am



Giventhe testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lotof explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as ofcourse, was Obama.


Thefollowing is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility casewere called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a veryinteresting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

Thecase revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution andwhether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point,if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012ballot in Georgia.

Withthe small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seenfanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return ofthe attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obamahimself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowherenear Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in LasVegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over thelast several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, hadattempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. Hefirst tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevantto Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, underthe law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later,that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.


Afterall these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski,in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting toplace Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to heheard and neither he nor his client would participate.



Secretaryof State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later tellingJablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate butthat he would do so at his and his clients peril.


Gameon.

5 minutes.

10minutes.

15minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20minutes.

Itappears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, allgo to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’schambers.

 HasObama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? 
Is he directly ignoring the courts subpoena? Is he placing Obamaabove the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear incourt, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, nonaction?

Certainlynot.

Courtis called to order.


Obama’sbirth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’sfathers place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.


Pages214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” enteredinto evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states thathis father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leaveKenya.


ImmigrationServices documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s fathers statusshown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gottenthrough the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding thedefinition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs.Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875.The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and“Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs.Happersett opinion.


Itis also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter thedefinition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointedout that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Courtopinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersettopinion.


Thepoint is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who,at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the UnitedStates. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is thatObama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.


Judgenotes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be takenaccordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.


Testimonyis presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, lawsapplicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and thechallenge to it by Swinson.


2ndwitness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimonyregarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on theGeorgia ballot and his candidacy.


Courtrecords of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.


Officialcertificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.


RNCcertificate of nomination entered into evidence.


DNClanguage does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified whilethe RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying toestablish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was notqualified.


Jablonskiletter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desirethat these proceedings not take place and that they would notparticipate.


DreamsFrom My Father entered.


Mr.Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.


Discoveryreceived from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered intoevidence. This discovery contains information regarding the status ofObama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.


Thisinformation states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S.Citizen.


Atthis point, the judge takes a recess.



Thejudge returns.


DavidFarrar takes the stand.


Evidenceshowing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality asIndonesian. Deemed not relevant by the judge.


OrlyTaitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.


Entersinto evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing arenewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’slast name something other than Obama.


StateLicensed PI takes the stand.


Shewas hired to look into Obama’s background and found a SocialSecurity number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given thatthis number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that thenumber was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in1890 and should never have been used by Obama.


SameSS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.


Nextwitness takes the stand.


Thiswitness is an expert in information technology and photo shop.. Hetestifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public islayered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates thatdifferent parts of the certificate have been lifted from more thanone original document.


LindaJordan takes the stand.


Documententered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is notverified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. Thisis the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.


Nextwitness.


Mr.Gogt.


Expertin document imaging and scanners for 18 years.


Mr.Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, issuspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by“unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showingthis, is considered to be a fraud.


Statesthis is a product of layering.


Mr.Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would notshow such layering.


Alsotestifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not bein exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped.Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the sameindicating they were NOT hand stamped but layered into the document bycomputer.


Nextwitness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigrationofficer specializing in immigration fraud.


RanObama’s SS number through database and found that the number wasissued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided inMA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.


Serialnumber on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued atthat hospital. Also certification is different than others anddifferent than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.


Mr.Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe,who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual withregards to immigration records.


Suggestsall records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth recordsbe made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed ornot. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.


Mr.Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should bearrested and deported and until all records are released nobody canknow for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.


Taitzshows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he residesin Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.


Taitztakes the stand herself.


Testifiesthat records indicate Obama records have been altered and he ishiding his identity and citizenship.


Taitzleave the stand to make her closing arguments.


Taitzstates that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented,ineligible to serve as President.


Andwith that, the judge closes the hearing.


Whatcan we take away from this?


Itsinteresting.

Now, all of this has finally been enteredOFFICIALLY into court records

Why Does Obama Hate Educating Boys ?

Warren Farrell has a major fight on his hands and one has to wonder why..

Why is it to hard for Obama and the cadre of male haters he has installed into the White House, be so determined to ignore a simple request for equality. I am sure that most people are familiar with that word and also what it is supposed to mean..

Warren Farrell has approached the White House, Obama and it's occupants with a simple request and that is that boys are shown the same discrimination that girls are. See the video for the comparison of how much effort is put into educating boys and how much additional, on top of the copious levels that already applies to girls in the educational arena..

I am so sick to death of this and so should the majority of parents be also. If you have a son in the educational system, be prepared for a second class education as that is precisely what he will get. Add to that bias, the fact that the majority of teachers are females and have always demonstrated their penchant at helping their own and ignoring boys..

The entire episode is a total disgrace. Please, whatever you do. Kick that male imitator Obama to the kerb. It's where he belongs..



Obama, FIRE and Feminist Rape Intervention..

feminist Obama..

Obama and the group of feminist female assassins he placed in the White House will no doubt ensure his re-election is definitely not guaranteed. One is supposed to show some level of respect for leaders especially one in charge of a superpower nation. But one just cannot find the appropriate reasons or examples or character or dignity or honour that would normally demand respect. In this example, it appears to be totally and completely absent..
When Obama's hench-women introduced the new rules applicable to bonking into Colleges and Universities, where the onus of proof was placed on the accused and not the opposite way around, as has always been the case (innocent until proven guilty, you know, that one), they knew precisely what the consequences would be but all it did was demonstrate that ALL radical feminists want is to jail, kill or remove as many men from the planet as possible. If in doubt refer to Radfem Hub posts on this site)

Rape/sexual assault on Campus stats, someone had a look and guess what ?
Not 1 in 4 but..

One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven



This way, they can stand back, for the cowards they are and claim innocence as well as achieving an outcome to a drama they have introduced themselves (the delusional claim that "women are being raped at a rate of 1-3,1-4,1-6", take a pick) and it's in plague proportions, but only in the minds of those feminists ofcourse. The one single factor that feminists failed to grasp is that they need to tell women they were raped, even though the so-called victims deny it themselves. The 1 in 4 proportions would actually mean that over 30 Million women would be raped, I mean really, .. Really. How can those delusional, blatant liars ever make that type of claim and then be rewarded by being placed in the White House ?

See what I mean about those re-election chances..

..And another issue that the politically correct universities have installed is starting to back them right where it hurts the most..

Marquette University Threatens Academic Freedom

Liberty Alerts, TheFIRE.org
Over at the blog Marquette Warrior, John McAdams provides a good example of how unwarranted investigations of campus speech can cause a deeply problematic “chilling effect” at a university. Universities must not pursue investigations of protected expression just because someone submits a complaint; as soon as it is clear that the expression in question is protected speech, the inquiry must end, even if there are other factual disputes. Prolonging the investigation tells everyone on campus that the university will pursue charges against you no matter how frivolous or malicious the complaint. The likely result is that people self-censor and keep their mouths shut rather than risk such investigation and a possible punishment.
It seems that Marquette University, where McAdams is a professor, made just such a mistake this month. According to McAdams, his introductory course in American politicsdiscusses alleged media bias and takes an anti-feminist perspective:
Ambiguous sexual encounters, often fueled by alcohol, are defined as “rape” by feminist researchers, but not defined that way by purported victims.
We point out that feminists insist that if a women consents to sex under the influence of alcohol, she has been raped. [...] Often, some guy who hasn’t yet learned that, in academia, he’s not supposed to question any feminist claim, will raise his hand in our class and ask “suppose the guy has been drinking too? Why didn’t she rape him?”
We always respond, sarcastically “you’ve got to look at this from the feminist point of view. Males are the oppressor class, and women the victim class. So of course the guy is responsible.”
We typically add “if you wake up in the morning and ask ‘what in the world did I do?’ you haven’t been raped. If you’ve been raped you feel violated. If it requires a feminist political activist to explain to you how what happened was rape, you weren’t raped.”
In response, someone complained using the “Ethics Point” hot line Marquette had set up for people to privately report illegal financial activity (which this classroom discussion certainly was not). The complaint (as reported by McAdams) was that the material in class was “demeaning to rape victims” and that “rape is a serious problem on campus, and thus we [in the course] were engaging in ‘harassment based on gender.’”
Marquette has no basis, consistent with free speech and academic freedom, to punish anyone for making a vigorous argument in class, even if some perceived that argument as “demeaning to rape victims.” Nevertheless, Provost John Pauly directed McAdams’ department chair to pursue the investigation. McAdams writes:
Faculty have a right to disagree with any political movement – including feminists. And social science faculty have a right to debunk bogus social science statistics. … [T]he complaint should have been dismissed immediately. Taking the complaint absolutely at face value, we did nothing but disagree with feminist claims about date rape, something clearly protected by the canons of academic freedom.
That’s quite right. Marquette, like most private universities, promises students and faculty members that it is the kind of university that supports free speech and academic freedom. Marquette’s Student Handbook, for instance, notes:
It is clearly inevitable, and indeed essential, that the spirit of inquiry and challenge that the university seeks to encourage will produce many conflicts of ideas, opinions and proposals for action.
Yet by pursuing this investigation, Marquette is letting a single student entangle a professor in disciplinary proceedings simply due to protected classroom expression. How many professors at Marquette are now going to steer clear of sensitive topics just to avoid an Ethics Point investigation?
Marquette has had free speech failings in the past, too, such as when it required a graduate student to remove no less than a humorous Dave Barry quote from his office door: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.” At Marquette, this language was deemed so “patently offensive” that it could not be posted on the door. (Here’s Dave Barry himself speaking about it in a FIRE video.)
Once again, it seems that Marquette draws the line at offensiveness in a way completely at odds with what academic freedom and free speech should and do permit.

Scarlett Johansson promoting the Scarlet..

Apparently ripping off one's clothes, flicking the switch and storing the end result on her phone was probably not the brightest idea one could take. The next dumb idea would be to make a political statements in the hope that the first action may be ruled out by the next..

Now what headliner could she use, one hysterical enough, to attract the appropriate attention. She found one..



Scarlett Johansson: ‘It Would Be Irresponsible’ Not to Support Obama
Yep! the Obama-noid's scurry round trying to justify another term for a President who has demonstrated clearly, his total and complete contempts for his fellow man including men of his own  colour. Obama installed a radical feminist "Women's" group to ensure and increase the privileges already in place at that time..
Johansson, who has been active in campaigning for various Democratic political leaders, including Barack Obama, tells Biskind that nearly one term later “we’re all guilty of being idealistic, I and everyone who voted for him.” But in response to being asked if she would work for him again, she says, “It would be irresponsible not to.”
Obama re-directed funds allocated to jobs that would have benefitted men as at that time the mancession was heading towards 10% of the workforce, he decided instead to allocate those billions to jobs employing the majority of women. If that was not enough, he also castigated all men about failing to care or to man-up for children, in what could only be seen as a statement, which could only have come out of his newly installed sexist and discriminatory "women's Office". Was broadcast world wide and once again demonstrating exactly where his priority lies..

More on the story here..




Obama and his Womanly Leadership..

Only to give them power, money, position, endless rights
I have never been a fan of Obama ever since he lied his way into office. A method used by some other hegemony to gain their power in society. But the final straw that finally completed my utter and complete loathing for this hypocrite was when he installed the male hating feminists into the White House and gave them open slather to persecutee men and boys by introducing draconian laws that you would only read about in Orwell's 1984. But that is precisely what it did and we have a new "guilty until proven innocent" law ensconced on every campus in USA to ensure that coming within a meter of any female on campus will enhance your chance exponentially to being falsely charged for whatever reason that comes to mind..

Chaudhury: Yesterday, Barbara Walters kept asking, ‘Should we police the world? You know, are we doing this? Should America fix it?’ And, I think, you know, I’m from India, and we really respect, uh, the Obama administration, purely for changing the way people speak, for changing the discourse of the world, and for bringing the temperature down, you know. This is a womanly leadership.”
Not only did Obama sell out his own sex but from the look of it he would have to ask permission just to have a pee as long as he put the seat down when he is done. Honour and dignity appears to be foreign to this feminist stooge as he cowtows to the like of these feminasties..
Unfortunately for the rest of us, Obama compensated by elevating extremist radical women like Kathleen Sebelius, Jane Lubchenco, and Carol Browner — all of whom have employed Beltway business-as-usual tactics to run roughshod over the rule of law.
In the end, Obama’s gals will be brass-knuckle boys to secure their agenda and power.
It’s not just a “hostile workplace” for a few grumbling women left out in the cold.
It’s a hostile workplace for all American taxpayers and job creators.

Dept. of Ed is Ignoring Us, Now We Take it to the Top..

This pertains to the draconian efforts that Obama and his team of henchwomen, he has installed in the White House under the guise and pretense of being all about "eqwalitee", which ofcourse is so far from the truth that it's not even remotely comprehensible..Obama installed the male hating witches a few months back under that standard guise but here we have another example of what it is they are really working on. If you are of the opinion that Obama gives anything but contempt to all men than you really need to update your thinking paradigm as he has already demonstrated how far down he already is in the feminist's male hating pockets. This President is a feminised sychophant of the worst degree, even wallowing lower than the delusional feminised manginas whom you can see on the web. Obama has to go and it will be within your best interest to see this traitor go..


Dept. of Ed is Ignoring Us, Now We Take it to the Top

Dear Christian,

As we reported last week, the U.S. Department of Education (DED) has issued a directive that requires colleges to use the "preponderance of evidence" standard in handling allegations of sexual assault, a standard that in practice removes the presumption of innocence.

Editorials rightly continue to condemn this directive, like:

The New Rules of College Sex.

We'd like to thank all of you who contacted Ms. Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights last week by email and phone. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough.

We are being ignored, and that is unacceptable. This week we take it to the top!

Let's flood the inbox and voice mailbox of Secy. Of Education Arne Duncan. Be resolute and be persistent. Politely yet firmly insist Mr. Duncan remove the sex assault policy that strips due process from the accused.

Please contact Arne Duncan today:

Telephone: 202-401-3000 Email: arne.duncan@ed.gov

Your voice matters. Use it.

More DED editorials: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-editorials .

Sincerely,

Teri

Teri Stoddard,
Program DirectorStop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

Another Biden Joke..

Biden reminds me of the saying "Can't walk and chew at the same time" as this mangina (male feminist supporting female superiority) has to be enemy number 2 on the scale of leaders determined to ensure that all Men are jesttisoned to third class position after women and children and I am almost inclined to say after the dog as well. Bearing in mind ofcourse that enemy number One is Obama as he has installed the male haters directly into the White House just to ensure that task is completed..

We cannot have Men free and being responsible as that just won't do. It is a good example of how far and wide that feminist hegemony has reached and how they are determined to destroy existing rights that Men once had

Disappearing at a rate of knots never before seen or heard of but people keep voting for those feminised cretins like they are saviours of the world when in reality they are directly opposed to it..


Gender 101: Biden is Biden 
from The False Rape Society  
by Archivistby Connie Chastain* 
For several weeks, I've been the recipient of some emails from a group called change.org. I don't remember signing up for these emails, although maybe I did. The two or three notices I've received have been about issues I care not one whit about. Until the latest.
It was about our illustrious vice-president's April comments about rape. "Rape is rape is rape," he said at the University of New Hampshire. I admit to being awed by such perspicacity. And I always thought Joe Biden was as dumb as a box of hammers.
Biden cited a story about a college freshman he called "Jenny" who was raped after a campus party and met with resistance from the university when she tried to pursue a case against her "assailant" (the word used in the email).
Now, pardon my skepticism, but that's not enough to go on. All we have is her word for it -- or his claim of her word for it. I know there are people who swallow this stuff without blinking, but I'm not one of them. Aside from the fact that I've heard this one before -- and heard it and heard it -- I'm also a reader of the FRS blog, and I know things that true believers don't know -- and wouldn't believe if they were told.
Rape -- as terrible as it is -- simply isn't that prevalent, certainly not on college campuses. Which explains the next part of the change.org email. They want to redefine rape, to include more ... things.
According to the email, the "FBI omits hundreds of thousands of rapes from its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) because it’s using an 80-year-old definition of rape. ... The FBI’s outdated definition of rape is limited to 'the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.'"
Well, golly. That's what I always thought it was. What has happened in the past 80 years that would make folks want to change the definition of rape? Well, how about feminism? How about women demanding "sexual freedom" so they can be just like men (or how they imagine men to be, although they hate men, so why would they want to be like them? I know.) -- only to find out it's not all its cracked up to be.
Anyway, change.org wants me to sign a petition to tell the FBI to "update" its definition of rape.
Ah, no. Rape is what it has always been -- a crime and a horrible experience. It is NOT drunken consensual sex that a woman regrets afterward. Attempting to redefine rape is just another salvo in the feminist war against men -- an effort that also relegates women to helpless victimhood, without responsibility for themselves or their actions.
Naturally, the e-mail from change.org says not one syllable about how such consensual sex gets called rape, and some man then gets arrested and investigated, and called "rapist" in the newspaper, and maybe TV reports -- for doing what? For doing the same thing the woman with him did. It says not a word about the outright false accusations of rape that get reported in this blog day after day after weary day.
Being a rightwing religious fundamentalist, I frankly disapprove of premarital and extramarital consensual sex. But I'm not so blinded by the light that I can tell the difference between that and rape.
 So, no. I'm not signing anything that seeks to equate some sorority chick's morning-after regret with the experience of a woman (or a man) who has been brutally raped, by the real definition of it. I don't hate men, so I'm not enthusiastic about making laws designed to make criminals out of men whose behavior is no different than their partners.
Yes, Joe. Rape is rape. Lies are lies. Parts is parts, and stupid is stupid.
*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/