As reported by Claire Zillman in Fortune Magazine, James said "equality" has led us to the place where women should be forced to register for the draft.

Need I remind the world of what a "draft" really is? A military draft is a means by which the federal government can FORCE citizens to serve in the armed forces AGAINST THEIR WILL. In other words, the draft is a way in which the United Stated government reserves the right to ENSLAVE some of its citizens and force them to serve, fight, and if need be DIE for whatever cause the politicians in Washington deem worthy. Ladies....does this sound like an "equality" you are interested in? Or would true equality mean that the government is not allowed to enslave ANYONE to "serve" against their will? Federally approved slave sales are no better than the 1850's version that existed in the South. Both women and men should fight the very notion of forced military enslavement.

I have written in numerous other places and in numerous other forums as to why this is an extraordinarily bad idea. The thought of sending men, against their will, to the front lines of battle is bad enough. But to send women is absolutely unconscionable. Are the women of America so duped by the feminist movement that they see this as a right and a privilege? Why should any citizen, male or female, be FORCED against their will to serve in the armed forces when they do not wish to?

During the 1960s Vietnam Era, Muhammad Ali bravely refused to be drafted into military service. While some might argue that Ali was a coward and a "draft dodger"; I would argue that it took much more courage to stand fast against the propaganda of the media and the government; and that Ali suffered severely for refusing this form of slavery. Ali's heavyweight title was stripped and his reputation besmirched. Why? Because he refused to submit to a forced re-location to Vietnam to fight an enemy that he knew nothing about. Was this cowardice? Or was this the right of a free American to pick and choose the battles he wishes to engage in? Regardless of whether or not you agreed with his stand, he had the right to take it. And so do you.

Van Sustern pressed Secretary James on the issue by asking if she would volunteer for service if she were younger and had the choice to do it again. James parroted the propaganda line and said she "would seriously consider it." So why is it that she expects the right to "consider it" for herself; yet doesn't think today's young women should be afforded this same right? She might have "chosen" to enter the military; but she contends that other young women should be forced to. Sounds like a government hack, who is put in charge of a military branch, engaging in blatant hypocrisy. Go figure.