In case you missed it, Roman Polanski was recently arrested in the land of Swiss Miss to be soon extradited to the US in hopes of finally serving the sentence he plead GUILTY to before fleeing the country like a…. what do you call it…. Oh yeah – a fucking coward.

But Hollywood elites like Harvey Weinstein and Debra Winger want you to know who the real ‘victim’ is. No not, the then 13-year-old who was drugged, vocalized her non-consent to intercourse, and was then anally raped while being scarred for life. Oh, no not her. It’s the douchebag who proves his manhood by drugging up young girls, all because he makes movies like The Pianist. (via HotAir.com)

Excuse me – booo freakin’ hoo.

So the guy made some boring movies that only really idiotic artsy fartsy people in elitist entertainment circles love???? So fucking what? That means he doesn’t have to serve out the punishment he PLEAD GUILTY to???

Truth is if he wasn’t a part of the elite entertainment industry, he wouldn’t get a defense and would have been extradited 32 years ago to serve his sentence. People who have kids or what I like to call COMMON SENSE would note that the picture of the actual girl to the left was a child at the time of the attack, not a consenting adult. The sad fact is that Polanski had to get her mother’s permission to participate in the photo shoot where he eventually raped her afterwards, but somehow 13 is old enough in the Hollywood community to not be a victim of rape.

Therefore, like any other convicted molester he should serve out his sentence. Defending him from doing so, no matter how old the crime is just proves someone’s ignorance and blindness-induced-by-partisan-
polarization, not a display of defending justice. Justice would be the sentence served over in Poland where they appropriately make bastards like Polanski a chemically-based unic for the rest of their lives.

Apparently this was a fashion show that Pamela ‘Road Hard and Hung Up Wet’ Anderson put on. I guess somehow wearing a scarf like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs (put the lotion IN THE basket!) makes her a fashion designer now. Yeah, more like fashion roadkill and I’m not talking about the roller skate freak who fainted from her “never aging beauty” on the runway. (via The Superficial)

And this celebrity was celebrated in the news for calling Sarah Palin an idiot who ‘can suck it.’ A laugh riot coming from a near second-to-lowest-rate hooker who was literally caught sucking it on camera. (I swear I haven’t seen it! Just the teaser, folks! Just the teaser! And you know you’ve watched the clips on YouTube – you ain’t gotz to lie; you ain’t gotz to liiiiiiie!)

Yeah, you can keep you liberal feminism if this is your shining example.

Giles should be given praise by organizations like NOW or a Pulitzer prize in journalism for exposing this type of criminal behavior against young girls. Instead she’ll probably be labeled an extremist by the likes of Gloria Steinem. What a shame.

I say “election-only” because that’s really the only time you hear about this “IMPORTANT” issue is on the freakin’ campaign trail, OR if a supreme court judge is up for nomination (which only seems to be once every 4-8 years).

For the most part everyone on both sides can agree to the ABCs of all other reproductive right methods – abstinence (100% effective), birth control pills (99% effective) and condoms (98-97% effective – depending on what the brand states).  But as my friend Jim once stated, pro-choice has now evolved into Pro-ONE-choice.  For the most part you don’t hear people debating about the reproductive rights to condoms or bc pills – unless distributed on a govt. school campus which is a different issue entirely (sorry, it is for those that are having a difficult time with that thing called the trufffffffffffff).

Anytangent, to me the issue of abortion can be a very gray issue. I don’t think it should completely illegal. Doing so would make it illegal for doctors to abort the fetus if the mother’s life was in danger. So in this scenario there could be a legal case made for abortion. And I could see where a case could be made for circumstances involving rape/incest.

But oh, but hold up all you pro-choicers – don’t start the celebration wagon yet. That said, all other cases of abortion should not be legal. And before any liberal pipes up about mother’s danger, rape or incest situation – FYI those circumstance account for less than 1% of all abortions – such a small # it practically doesn’t count.  Do we make drunk driving legal even though it only accounts for less than 1% of the total possible results everytime a person gets in the car? No. Do we allow pregnant women to smoke cigarettes or crack cocaine? No. Why Not? Doesn’t the govt. not have the right to put a gun to woman’s head demanding what she do with her body? Gee, liberals, kind of stumped???

That’s because the right to liberty does not trump the right to life. And that my friends is at the center of this debate.

Unfortunately, this weekend the Catholic Church’s top worldwide notable university, Notre Dame, decided to go against the moral underlying of the Pope (the Pope! for @#$!@#$@ sake) and invite the HAPIC (head abortion proponent in charge) to come speak at the university’s commencement. OH! and give him an honorary degree. Brillzzzz! (rolling eyes).  Just what did President Teleprompter say during the controversial appearance. You guessed it – just your standard “we should continue to be open minded in this heated social debate while the side I represent never givens in from their extremist POV.” Classic liberalism – I’m going to request that you be open-minded while I’m as close minded as possible to your positions (via Doctor Zero at HotAir’s GreenRoom)

The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-choice” do not believe the aborted fetus is a living human being with any legal rights. Some see abortion as essentially a surgical procedure to remove a clump of cells. This view is hard-coded into federal law through the Roe vs. Wade decision, which states that no legal restriction can be placed on aborting a fetus until it can potentially survive outside the mother’s womb. The majority of people who identify themselves as “pro-life” believe the unborn child is human long before it can pass this “survivability” test, so abortion involves the killing of a living human being. This is not a difference of opinion that can be resolved by “holding hands” and “building bridges.” I doubt it is a question medical science will ever resolve conclusively for us, since they’ll never develop a soul detector… and if they did, it would immediately be suppressed by politicians, to prevent it from being used on them.

What people seem to miss is that most pro-lifers (even the religious ones) have compromised on most issues considering the supposed “true” pro-choice stance.  They may not engage in the pro-choice activities themselves, but they accept the public’s use or availability to them.

• They’re accepted the choice of abstinence.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of engaging in sexual promiscuity without protection.
• They’re accepted the personal choice of using condoms and birth control.
• Most have accepted the Plan B birth control option – since technically Plan B is not terminating an already reproduced life; it’s preventing prior to reproduction technically.
• Like myself, they’ve even for the most part compromised on abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, or is a situation of rape/incest.

Pro-lifers have acknowledged and compromised on the debate of pro-choice, but where has the compromise from the Pro-Choice side come in? Instead it’s the argument from the extremist point of view. Since pro-lifers aren’t on the “5 o’clock FREE Abortion Giveaway” platform, then they’re against women’s rights. LMFAO, liberals. Yeah, it’s conservatives having compromised on the access to multiple methods of birth control really not being open minded in this debate (snickers). Doctor Zero makes another excellent point in his post:

The last thing anyone in the Democrat Party wants to do is have a genuine debate, with serious consequences, against the pro-life movement. The best liberals can bring themselves to do is offer tepid acknowledgment that another side to the debate exists, which you can barely hear over the sound of the liberal congratulating himself for the openness of his mind.

Exactly. Oh GREAT ONE OBAMA, please show me at least 1-2 examples of when the pro-choice side of the debate has been open-minded to the pro-life’s stance on the reproductive rights issue?

I double dog dare you! No, I triple dog dare you! Until you or one of your Obamabots can show a clear example of this, take a good tablespoon of  STFU medicine about pro-lifers needing to be more “open minded.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

If it were In the Valley of Elah with Tommy Lee Jones – critical praises and Oscar nomination. Charlie Wilson’s War with Tom Hanks and Julia Robert’s atrocious Texan accent – critical praises and Oscar nominations.  Stop Loss (a film that inaccurately depicts what Stop Loss actually is – go liberal smearing Hollywood!) with ImdeterminedtoproveI’magreatactordespitemyprettyface Ryan Phillipe – critical praises.

All some take on anti-America, anti-military, pro-misunderstood Middle East, pro-itsokaytobeagainstanyUSeffortstofightterrorism.

Now here’s a movie that sheds some light on how women are treated over in some countries in the Eastern world – The Stoning of Soraya M. (emphasis mine)

This resonant book portrays the ugliness of fundamentalist Islamic mob justice in Khomeini-era Iran. Sahebjam, an Iranian journalist based in France who has written critically of the regime, returned to his homeland under cover in 1986. While visiting a small town he calls Kupayeh, he learned how an innocent 35-year-old woman had been stoned to death for supposed infidelity. His thorough reporting, based on a further visit to the village, reconstructs Soraya’s life and killing with much dialogue and interior monologue. Soraya gave birth to nine children in 14 years and her husband Ghorban-Ali also turned to prostitutes. He became involved in shady business deals and began to associate with Sheik Hassan, a criminal who was appointed Ayatollah Khomeini’s local representative. When Ghorban-Ali, having fallen in love with another woman, accused his wife of infidelity, villagers lied to aid him and Soraya was left with no support in the town. Her two eldest sons sat on the male tribunal that declared her guilty, and she was stoned by a mob that included her father.

I’m sure it will receive terrible reviews because 1). It depicts a true story of how women are oppressed in the Middle East (not ALL of the Middle East, but a majority), 2). Stars Jim Caviezel (which kudos to him for not letting Hollywood bully him into a disappearing act after the backlash on Passion of the Christ), and 3). is not an “America’s military efforts all post-1990 are war mongerist” portrayal. Not that it’s a pro-military movie by any means, but it just seems lately that any movie out of Hollywood which is set in the Middle East must never show the violent tendencies that exist in this part of the world even though they are ubiquitously present. I mean I watched the movie A Mighty Heart and even that movie wouldn’t go near the portrayal of Daniel Pearl’s kidnappers as the disgusting, violent terrorists that they were.

I think this summer I’m going to get the book this movie is based on and read it. Plus the book is banned in Iran (BIG SURPRISE) so just buying it will bring a smile across my face because I’m sticking it to Ahmajenidad in some way. Sarah in an earlier post also recommended these other books for educating yourself about the lives of women in the Middle East – The Bookseller of Kabul and The Places In Between.

Also, keep in mind when you hear some liberal talk about how this doesn’t go on anymore to look at something other than Wikipedia and YouTube comments for his defense on that argument. Stoning of women goes on in many places of the world, and unfortunately these women are given no chance to defend themselves against the lies that typically cause them to be stoned to death. Remember, in American if violence is conducted against a woman the perp is prosecuted, but a lot of times in these countries for religious/cultural reasons the women are the ones who half to suffer punishment for acts of violence committed AGAINST them in the first place.

One more thing to keep in mind is that this story happened under the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini and thugs in his tyrannical dictatorship were connected to this particular incident. Guess which president led to the Ayatollah coming into power because of his inept foreign policy?

My baloney has a first name, it’s J-I-M-M-Y….

My baloney has a second name, it’s C-A-R-T-E-R…

When Jimmy Carter has his say,

It’s human rights pushed to the side in every way!

When I would debate with friends on Facebook I would LOVE to bring up this fact – McCain overwhelmingly paid higher and promoted more women in his campaign than Obama. Yet Obama was praised as this fighter for women’s rights. I didn’t get how this was logical with those facts, but then that’s typical of the liberal thought process. Throw out facts and logic, and BOOM! there’s your argument.

(via CNS News now, but I first read this on The Boston Globe which for some “reason” is no longer available)…

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

 

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

Now, couple this with the fact that black women Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton were on several occasions verbally abused by Obama mentors like Emil Jones (DEMOCRAT, State “Corrupt as F*CK” Senator in Illinois). (via NewsBusters)

“Last night, I was called an ‘Uncle Tom’ by Emil Jones in the lobby of the hotel, right in front of [Ald.] Freddrenna Lyle and [Ald.] Leslie Hairston and [Ald.] Latasha Thomas,” said Cobb, a member of Clinton’s Illinois Steering Committee. “I walked over to him and asked him, ‘What did you just call me?’ “

Or how about how those Obama supporters who were found to be displaying their support for empowering women at Hillary’s speeches:

Fast forward a few months after the big day and surprise, surprise. Looks like a leopard doesn’t change its spots after all. Months after the election a certain President didn’t come through on his promises for representing women. To the left, Jon Favreau, Obama’s speechwriter, does his best to epitomize this administration’s lead in supporting objectifying women. And it looks like his main man is keeping that glass ceiling tight after somebody went and let Sarah Palin get through it.

Can somebody say – OOOOPS! (via CNN)

It [Obama's cabinet] might be diverse, but not everyone is happy. Some women’s groups are disappointed. Among Obama’s strongest backers during the election, they now say they don’t have enough seats at the table.

In fact, look at the contradiction of my favorite ill-informed liberal, Kim Gandy, president of NOW. Here’s her on Palin during the election:

Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women’s rights, just like John McCain.

All because Palin is pro-life. Newsflash Gandy: Abortion rights are not the rights of women but the right to life of children. And last time I checked women’s rights are not solely defined by the pro-choice/pro-life debate. But you’re doing greeeeeeeat keeping up that liberal myth to the public.

Now here’s her on Obama after she blindly voted for him in a kool-aid stupor on Nov. 4th:

“When you are looking at a Cabinet and you have such a small number of women in the room when the big decisions are being made, there need to be a lot more women’s voices in this administration.”

Ummm…can we break that down again?

McCain – hires more women than men, promotes more women to more top positions, pays women more than men, encourages our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan where prior to our occupancy those oppressive rulers were celebrating women’s rights with rape rooms and denying them the right to vote, OH! and nominates a woman as his VP choice.

Obama – no track record of the previously stated under McCain, BUT he’s pro expanding abortion until the baby can talk!

Yeah, good one, Kim. Way to have stuck up for women on that one! (rolling eyes)  VoterFAIL!

Can you feel the feminist love yet???  OINK! ONIK!

This week WNBA star Candace Parker announced she was starting a family. You’d think this would be cause for celebration, but apparently there are some people who aren’t excited to throw the expecting mom a baby shower.

Parker probably figured the news would be non-controversial, given that the fresh-faced Los Angeles Sparks forward and Olympic gold medalist is happily married to Sacramento Kings forward Shelden Williams. Both earn more than enough to support a family: Parker alone reaps millions on and off the court as one of the most celebrated women athletes in the world.  But Parker’s pregnancy was not greeted with the same approval and tolerance that many of today’s child-bearing sexagenarians and single mothers by choice enjoy when they form their families. Instead, Parker was blasted by fans and pundits for becoming a mother at age 22. Critics bemoaned her selfishness in putting maternal ambitions ahead of her team’s 2009 season prospects. Others lamented her foolishness for starting a family when she should be living a strings-free existence oriented around her glamorous career.

Oh and here’s how her boss responded:

“My first reaction was to just shake my head. We’re inured to this by now so I guess I thought. ‘Oh, yeah, she’s having a baby. Yeah, of course.”

Shaking your head – my guess in disappointment because who shakes their head in joy, really. Good grief, boss-lady, could you TONE IT DOWN on the support front. Geez. LOL.

Parker responded with the best comment possible. The fact she even has to comment on justifying her choice to start a family is what is ridiculous.

“The biggest thing for me is not a matter of if or when [I return] but of coming back with a good balance in my life.”

You know, I’m going through the same thing. Not to get to personal but I plan to start a family sometime this year or next, but this has been a hard decision. On one hand you don’t want to sacrifice your career but on the other you don’t want to sacrifice your family for a job. I think society is starting to put too much pressure on women that they have to try and be these super women – be the VP, be the super mommy, be in fabulous shape, be EVERYTHING. I think it’s getting to be too much on women. I’ve seen how in trying to do all of these things it affects women in the workplace. And women are discriminated against it every single fucking day. It pisses me off. I’ve seen a woman not get offered a job because there was the only the possibility she would get pregnant at some point. Even though that woman was the most qualified candidate. No I’m honestly not joking which is sad.  There should be nothing wrong with a woman deciding to have a baby at any point in her career. AND it shouldn’t be held against her to stay at home, out of the job market, if she chooses to for a few years. Only a small percentage of companies offer day care . The cost of daycare is outrageous and most of the time isn’t cost-effective when compared to the woman just staying at home or working part-time until the child is in school.

Since when did choosing to start a family become something both women and men (but especially women) must apologize for? Isn’t giving life one of the (if not the main) purposes of living? I can accept if somebody chooses not to have children OR waits until later to have children. But to vilify women for choosing to start their family when they have a stable family and career – grrr, I just don’t get it.  I thought two years ago I would start having kids for another five years, but then I started to realize that those five years means five years I don’t have with my children. And for what??? More time at work – ummm, thumbs freakin’ up! Please, work will always be there but time with your family will not. At the end of your life and you could take that time back, are you going to wish you had spent that time devoted more to your career or to more time with your family? I don’t think that question should be difficult to answer.

HotAir also makes an excellent double standard point:

No one seems to be making that argument about her husband, however, even though he plays the same sport for the NBA’s Kings, even though he can reasonably expect to take some time off for the birth.

Is a basketball game now more important than a family? What IF Parker is having one of the world’s next great leaders? What IF her child will find the next great cure or be the next great poet? Granted we don’t know what her child will be but the fact that some are putting the LA Sparks’ season on the shoulders of a mom-to-be is completely ludicrous.  And I bet it’s these same folks putting up a stink that also say they’re for “women’s rights.” Riiight, whatever you need to tell yourself.