An Afghan woman carries a girl while standing in line at a polling station in Herat, western Afghanistan, August 20, 2009.
REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

How about not feeling worthy of standing above those “transformative figures” who haven’t been honored by the peace prize? Who are the ones who stand in the shadow of “The One we’ve been waiting for”?

A record 205 nominations (72 individuals and 33 organizations) were made for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. And President Barack Hussein Obama beat them all. Notable among these? Dr. Sima Samar:

here in Afghanistan the big story is about the nominee who didn’t win the prize. That would be Dr. Sima Samar, an incredibly courageous Afghan woman who has risked her life for much of the past decade, treating women and girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Dr. Samar is the chairwomen of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, a very influential organization in Kabul. She has won more awards from human rights organizations than I can list here, but you can see them for yourself on her Wiki page.

Dr. Samar was the first Hazara woman to obtain a medical degree from Kabul University, back in 1982. After a four-month residency at Wazir Akhbar Khan Hospital in Kabul, she was forced to flee for her life as Soviets and Mujahedeen fought bloody street battles in the capital. She returned to her home village of Jaghoori, where she began treating the sick in rural Afghanistan. Soon the Russians arrested her husband and, once again Dr. Samar fled, this time with her young son, to Pakistan. In Pakistan she founded a clinic to treat refugees of the war in Afghanistan and has since described the conditions in the refugee camps as “appalling.”

Dr. Samar returned to Afghanistan in 2002, where she assumed the post of Deputy President and later Minister of Women’s Affairs in the interim government of Hamid Karzai. She was forced to resign after making negative comments about sharia law and her life was constantly under threat. She is vocally opposed to the Burka, saying the the lack of sunlight on women’s skin causes Afghan women to have an unusually high instance of bone diseases.

Dr. Samar has likely saved the lives of countless women and girls who’s medical problems would otherwise have been ignored and their eventual deaths, unnoticed. Guess that’s not enough for the gang up in Oslo.

Better luck next year, Doc.

A schoolgirl sits in a classroom at Syed Pasha school, which was built by Canadian troops, near Kandahar Air Field September 8, 2009.
REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly

More:

In the face of threats to her own safety, Dr. Samar has defied the Taliban’s edicts that deny women and girls their basic rights to education, employment, mobility and medical care. Since 1989, Dr. Samar has been operating schools for girls and health clinics in many of the provinces of Afghanistan as well as in the refugee camps in Quetta, Pakistan. She has shown an incredible commitment towards assisting Afghan women in their struggles to end their oppression and to provide them with access to healthcare and education services. She is a strong advocate for the involvement of Afghan women in government and the reconstruction of civil society in Afghanistan.

Sima Samar was born in February 1957 in Ghazani, Afghanistan. As a child in school, she learned what it meant to be a minority in Pushtun-dominated Afghanistan. She is Hazara, one of the most persecuted of the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan that comprise some 17 percent of the population. Moreover, as a female in a conservative Muslim society, she was doubly second class. At 18, she married and began her medical education. She obtained her degree in medicine in February 1982 from Kabul University, the first Hazara woman to do so. Soon after came the Russian invasion, and as a doctor, she aided the anti-Soviet resistance movement, the mujahideen. When her husband was arrested in 1984, never to be seen again, Sima Samar and her young son fled to the safety of nearby Pakistan, where she worked as a doctor in a refugee camp in the small border town of Quetta. Thousands of refugees from war-ravaged Afghanistan lived there in appalling misery, particularly the women, who were forbidden to visit male doctors, venture from their homes to work or attend school.

With other women, Dr. Samar established her first hospital for women in 1987 and later in 1989 established the Shuhada Organization, a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan with special emphasis on the empowerment of women and children. Dr. Samar and her medical staff now run four hospitals and ten clinics in Afghanistan and another hospital in Quetta that provide much needed medical assistance and education for Afghan women and children. Worried about where the next generation of female physicians will come from, Dr. Samar also provides medical training courses at the hospitals she runs. She runs schools in rural Afghanistan for more than 20,000 students as well as a school for refugee girls in Quetta attended by over 1,000 girls. Her literacy programs are accompanied by distribution of food aid and information on hygiene and family planning. Services also include mobile health clinics and medical outreach workers who go door to door. Last year, the Taliban succeeded in closing two of her hospitals in Afghanistan but the others are still running.

Dr. Samar refuses to accept that women must be kept in purdah (secluded from the public) and speaks out against the wearing of the burqa (head-to-foot wrap), which was enforced by the Taliban. She also has drawn attention to the fact that many women in the area are suffering from osteomalacia, a softening of the bones, due to an inadequate diet. Wearing the burqa reduces exposure to sunlight and aggravates the situation for women suffering from osteomalacia.

Dr. Samar is also part of the international network Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which has links in 40 countries and a powerful voice at the United Nations. She received the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership in 1984.

And who is it that beat out this woman and 203 other nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Who is it that will be the clarion “call to action” for Americans? Whose personal story and commitment to appeasement is an inspiration for everyone around the world? Why, none other than our own illustrious, dear leader who, on the same day as his win, snubbed the 1989 peace prize recipient: Barack Hussein Obama.

Mmm….mmm….mm.

And we Americans better applaud the choice and be proud of our president’s win. We wouldn’t want to be called “unpatriotic” and accused of siding with the Taliban, now would we?

Hat tip for the story: CJ

What a shock that Maureen Dowd devoted her New York Times column Sunday to attack Sarah Palin. It did not so much criticize Alaska’s governor for prematurely stepping down from her official duties as to finish off what sister snipers Katie Couric and Tina Fey began last fall.

The assassination of Sarah Palin – by media.

For those who didn’t pay attention, Mrs. Palin’s unexpected stratospheric rise as a national political figure threatened the media’s preordained presidency of Barack Obama.

In light of how the Obama machine took down Hillary Clinton, which unsettled many feminists who believed 2008 was their time, many who saw sexism at play – the destruction of an ascendant Republican female icon was an urgent imperative for the Democratic Party.

~~~

Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey – Mr. Obama’s Angels (featuring Joy Behar in the role of “Bosley”) – used a potent mix of mockery, snobbery and vitriol to undermine Mrs. Palin’s feminist bona fides.

They are what my wife calls “pad throwers,” an allusion to the shower room scene in the Stephen King film “Carrie,” in which the popular girls throw sanitary napkins and tampons at the film’s namesake.

Simply put, they are bullies. And female bullies – “Mean Girls” as Miss Fey’s film calls them – are the cruelest kind.

Primarily motivated by a desire to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare,” female liberals in the media have carte blanche to do and say anything.

But since Mrs. Palin, a mother of five including a boy who was known to have Down syndrome before he was born, is a potent symbol of the pro-life movement, which means the female Alaska governor can’t have it.

Miss Dowd’s attempted takedown of Mrs. Palin is less skillful surgery than it is name calling using fun noun and adjective pairings. Think “Mad Libs.” And, that’s exactly what Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey are. Once the ladies did their job, liberal men like Jon Stewart and David Letterman had the cover to join the hate campaign.

While Mrs. Palin is at ease with her gender, as well as her place in the workplace and at home, Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey convey a base insecurity in their feminine skin. Their rage is fueled by liberalism’s false feminist dogma and they take it out on a woman who chose not to join their angry sorority.

The governor of Alaska’s compelling narrative – athlete, beauty queen, wife, mother, hunter, successful politician – shows adherents of narrow leftist dogma that, perhaps, women really can have it all. Most importantly: freedom of thought.

In calling Alaska’s governor “Caribou Barbie,” Miss Dowd used beauty as a weapon to diminish Mrs. Palin’s achievements. A man would be reprimanded for this, but Miss Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning pad thrower and is licensed for such vindictive pettiness.

“Caribou,” of course, is a stab at Mrs. Palin’s backwater, Red State ways, attacks on which an Upper Westside liberal snob can never get enough. Miss Dowd goes on to ridicule “Sarah’s country-music melodramas.” This is her barely veiled attempt to call Mrs. Palin “white trash.” And this has been the loathsome subtext of all media criticism of the Palins. They even went after their children. Mercilessly.

And Mrs. Palin during the Letterman saga finally cried, “Enough!”

Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias.

I know the readers understand why I put feminists into quotations above because there is no way, no how, someone who is a real feminist would throw such insults at a female who is strong, independent, and successful. But the feminist movement has always been a leftist breeding ground, or has been as long as I’ve been alive. It’s not women rights they cherish, but the liberal ideology.

But there are still a few sane feminists out there and I happened upon one recently. Violet at The Reclusive Leftist (h/t Brutally Honest). I know her and I would disagree on much, but on this subject it appears we agree…or agree on having no answer why they hate Sarah so:

I don’t usually comment on other blogs; I have little enough time to keep my own gig in working order. But the other day I was over at I Blame The Patriarchy, where I was dismayed to find in the comment threads some of the same Palin-bashing that has become drearily familiar from the rest of the inner tubes. Now, IBTP is just about the best feminist blog going, with a genius proprietor and a thoughtful commentariat. Hence my dismay. Even here? I thought. Fortunately, some of the commenters there did try to set the record straight, though they got significant guff from others.

This is the comment I left, which I’m dragging back here to the smoking lounge for your perusal (the first bit in italics is a quote from Jill):

“Mang, when I wrote this post, I sure never expected it would result in blamer support for a skeevy antifeminist politician.”

It seems that some blamers know that the bullshit published about Palin (and unfortunately repeated here) was just that — bullshit. Palin considers herself a feminist, and except for the abortion thing, she’s more explicitly feminist than the average American. When a regular Jane with that kind of background proclaims her feminist sympathies, it doesn’t seem terribly productive to ridicule her or indulge in the misogynist slander put out by the political hacks running against her. I mean, sure, by the standards of pure feminism, she’s an enabling godbag. But so are most American women. On the other hand, by the standards of the Republican Party or evangelical Christianity, she’s Twisty Faster.

Pheenobarbidoll responded that abortion rights are a cornerstone too important to overlook, to which I replied:

Abortion rights are important. But it’s interesting that Hugo Schwyzer, a male “pro-life” feminist and former member of and financial contributor to Feminists For Life, is allowed into the feminist community. He even blogs at RH Reality Check, and has been befriended by Amanda Marcotte.

Schwyzer’s awkward pro-feminist/anti-abortion stance is the same as Sarah Palin’s, yet only Palin is reviled and ridiculed. How dare she call herself a feminist!

Someone else then loftily announced that Palin cannot be a feminist since she “believes in keeping children ignorant of the facts of their reproductive rights and responsibilities.” To which I replied:

She doesn’t believe that. She’s fully in favor of sex ed and contraception.

I imagine you consider yourself a feminist. What I’m wondering is why, if you’re a feminist, you don’t even give Palin the courtesy of finding out what she actually believes, rather than simply accepting the lies created by political hacks? This is bizarre to me. It’s really not difficult to google and discover that Sarah Palin is in favor of contraception and sex ed, that the whole “abstinence-only” thing is a smear spread by Obama supporters.

It’s a bit weird to drag all this back here to the lounge, but it’s the setup for the giant, rambling brain dump that’s about to follow. Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation has brought out the crazy again, and reading through the blogs I’m reminded of how much pure bullshit has been said and believed about her and continues to be said and believed. I’m reminded of how so many feminists seem possessed of a wholly irrational hatred for this woman.

Why?

This isn’t going to be the kind of post where I sketch out a pattern and then give you The Key To Understanding It All. This is going to be more like a stream-of-consciousness tiptoe through the violets of my reclusive thought processes. I’ve been puzzling over this stuff since last August. One reason I’ve written as many posts as I have about Palin is because I’m so baffled by the reaction to her. I can’t figure it out. It’s like quantum entanglement or dark energy: I make myself sick trying to understand it and worry that I’ll die before I get it sorted. (I know: Xanax.)

Of course, the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But none of those things is true. None of them.

Which brings me to my first puzzlement: why don’t people bother to find out what Sarah Palin really believes? I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.

Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

It’s much longer then I have quoted above, so read the whole thing. Violet may be horrified that a conservative blog would quote her approvingly seeing as how we are on the opposite political spectrum (her fans can be assured we still disagree on much), but I am just as confused as she is about why a true feminist like Sarah Palin can be drawn and quartered by those who purport to be feminists.

One last quote from Violet:

it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.

Hit the nail on the freakin head there.

Myself, I believe it comes down to the liberal, leftist, ideology trumping feminism. Because any honest feminist would be proud of Sarah…..it appears there are very few honest feminists unfortunately.

Yeah, he actually meant to “joke” about the 18 year old Bristol having sex with a baseball player rather then 14 year old Willow bring raped (statutory). Makes sense right? Seeing as how Bristol was NOT at the game he referenced but Willow was.

Give me a break.

His exact words:

One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.

Nope, no confusing that one no matter how much he lies in an attempt to squirm out of this pickle.

Palin called him pathetic in response….pretty damn good description of the man.

Meanwhile we have commentors telling everyone that hey…can’t you take a joke?

Lets see how the lefties react when a comedian calls Obama’s daughters “nappy-headed ho’s.”

You think they will just shrug their shoulders?

Yeeeeaaaah.

John Nolte has a rundown of the “Top Ten Possible Letterman Reactions to Fallout Over Willow Palin Rape ‘Joke’”….my favorite is number 1:

1. If what I said was so wrong, why haven’t feminists complained?

Indeed.

UPDATE

NOW finally slaps Letterman on the hand for being bad but has to put a dig into the conservatives by propagating the lie that Rush called Chelsea a dog:

Letterman said “I recognize that these are ugly” jokes. NOW agrees. Comedians in search of a laugh should really know better than to snicker about men having sex with teenage girls (or young women) less than half their age.

The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows these days — it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves. Letterman also joked about what he called Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” — yet another example of how the media love to focus on a woman politician’s appearance, especially as it relates to her sexual appeal to men. Someone of Letterman’s stature, who appears on what used to be known as “the Tiffany Network” (CBS), should be above wallowing in the juvenile, sexist mud that other comedians and broadcasters seem to prefer.

On that point, it’s important to note that when Chelsea Clinton was 13 years old she was the target of numerous insults based on her appearance. Rush Limbaugh even referred to her as the “White House dog.” NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren’t professed conservatives.

I love it. They have the gall to call us hypocrites when the only hypocrites on this matter can be found from the left side of the aisle. They go back 16 years and find an incident which was never accurately reported to somehow justify the dig. Puhlease. I just wonder where they were at last year when Palin and family were attacked daily with sexist jokes.

NOW has proven themselves to be hypocrites for the last four decades by basing every action, everything they do, on the leftist ideology….

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin:

During her visit she visited different historical and not so historical sites and met the residents of Auburn: (h/t to Conservative 4 Palin)

Bistro One got a very last-minute reservation request Thursday. But this was one they wanted to make room for.

Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin participated in a breakfast event Friday morning at the Auburn restaurant. The event, which was attended by area supporters, kicked off a day of activities for the Republican governor at various local businesses, parks and organizations.

Her tour of the area precedes today’s first-ever Founders Day, which celebrates local history. During the Auburn festival, Palin will take part in a parade, speak at the city hall and attend a fundraiser luncheon at the Seward House.

~~~

One of about 40 in attendance at the breakfast was state Assemblyman Gary Finch. Finch said Palin gave a nonpolitical talk, and she expressed gratitude to the local community for inviting her.

Finch said that Palin, who brought her husband, Todd, daughter, Willow, her sister and nephew along, made sure to speak individually with each person at the event.

“She certainly conveyed to everyone that she is very glad to be here,” said Finch, who will also participate in Saturday’s festivities.

“She was very real, very genuine,” Finch said.

She also visited the Harriet Tubman Home:

At 10:15 a.m., a black SUV took her to the Tubman House for an unannounced tour away from the media pool. Palin’s family was shown through Tubman’s Home for the Aged, and site manager Paul Carter pointed out a print of a guardian angel leading a child. Carter said it reminded him that Tubman was “the guardian angel of us all.”

“That’s beautiful,” Palin said. “That says it all.”

In the Tubman visitor center, after hearing about Tubman’s resilience as she fought slavery, Palin called over her nephew Karcher, who is autistic, and said, “This is something for you, anytime you go through something tough. Keep going.”

And the Women’s Rights National Historic Park and the National Women’s Hall of Fame:

Shortly before noon, Palin’s party was led to the National Women’s Hall of Fame by Executive Director Christine Moulton. Moulton pointed out a number of inductees (including Ruth Colvin, founder of Literacy Volunteers in Syracuse) who had made great contributions to society after raising a family.

“That’s very hopeful for a lot of young moms today, who have to put things on hold,” said Palin, whose 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, is raising a child.

At the Hall of Fame, Palin — wearing a Blue Star Mom pin and bracelet for her son Track serving in Iraq, and showing red toenails in open shoes — posed for pictures.

Moulton gave Palin flowers. Nozzolio gave Palin a DVD of Ken Burns’ series on Anthony and Stanton (”Not for Ourselves Alone”). Palin congratulated Seneca Falls Mayor Smith for being “a good mommy mayor” and “setting an example for young women who want to affect positive change.”

At one point, Palin said she shared with Susan B. Anthony a desire for the protection of women. “For me, that includes our youngest sisters, girls in the womb,” she said.

And one reaction from a resident needs to be repeated:

Adams and his daughter, Erin, got up at 5:30 a.m. to be in Auburn this morning. By 9 a.m., they were seated in folding chairs and talking with other Palin fans. John Adams likes Palin’s politics.

“She makes me think of Ronald Reagan,” John Adams said.

“For the first time since Reagan, I’ve found a candidate that … sounds like Reagan and that has some Reaganesque qualities,” said Adams, 56. “She’s not the speaker Reagan was, but she believes the same things Reagan believed and talk that way, and that inspires me.”

Later she led a parade through Auburn where 20,000 people showed up to cheer her on and gave a speech which definitely contained some red meat. As she reached the podium you can hear people yell “run Sarah run.” The video’s of the speech is below but a few spots of interest, at about the 2:20 mark in part 1:

We never need to fear that though we’re not a perfect nation, that we must apologize for being proud of ourselves.

Later in part 1 she honors a few Auburn son’s who gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq asking them to join her in “promising the gold star moms that our soldiers deaths are not in vain and we will continue to fight for our security, our democracy, our freedom.”

And she takes on those who criticized her for not taking the strings attached stimulus money from the federal government (part 4 below):

I recently turned down, or vetoed, stimulus dollars that were tied to implementing…some mandates from the federal government trying to take away more control of our local governments, and our families, and our businesses. In this case, implementing universal energy building codes that some claimed after I vetoed the money “oh, she’s just trying to make a political statement.” And, no, I’m actually trying to use some common sense here, and some may be uncomfortable with that, but it is the right thing to do.

You know the response I got when I vetoed these dollars? “Girl, are you crazy, the federal government is handing out free money and if you don’t take it another state’s going to spend it.” Oh this borrowed, debt ridden, government growing money – it is not free money, and taking it takes away anything that is free.

So many in Congress warned the states about the ramifications of accepting the money, and most legislators went around governors who didn’t want to take all the money, and they resolved via resolutions to take the money anyway. But opportunity for development and local control, that is what’s taken away when all of these dollars are accepted without questioning them, because, believe it or not, there are fat strings attached to this borrowed money. See that attitude of free money is wrong.

Finally I have just conceded, I’ve said ok, I just won’t claim that there are strings attached. I won’t use that term anymore. Because the more we dig into these mandates, these connections that the money would have that we would spend coming from the federal government, including the string attached to these dizzying federal debts that we are handing to our kids and to their kids to pay off for us – I can’t say strings attached anymore, now I say they are ropes…They are debt building, binding, controlling ropes and it is bigger government that ultimately will take away our opportunities and our freedoms.

And now precedent says government will bail you out, depending on the decisions that you’ve made if you’re not prudent with your business dollars. Government will buy you out. Anyone need a car? And this is a problem because we cannot afford this government largess and control and unrestrained spending. I don’t think that’s what Seward had in mind. And I do not believe it’s the will of the people.

Lastly she also speaks about the part Alaska plays in our national defense (part 5 below). Watch them all, great speech and a great lady.

On Wednesday at 9 p.m., “The Goode Family” will have its premiere on ABC and become the first animated series on the network’s prime-time lineup since 1995

~~~

“Goode” lampoons a liberal Midwestern household. In “Goode,” the characters are often mocked for being green just to fit in with their friends and neighbors. They are a perfect target for the 46-year-old Mr. Judge and his two longtime co-writers, John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky, who have made careers out of finding humor in the follies and pretensions of everyday people. . . .

“The Goode Family” came from an idea that Mr. Altschuler had while on vacation. Mr. Altschuler’s wife observed how difficult it was to “be good”—i.e., environmentally responsible. That became the central premise for the Goode Family. Mr. Judge, who says he was inspired by the mellow tones of National Public Radio hosts, provides the voice of the bicycle-riding college administrator Mr. Goode.

Good video.

Now, remember these words spoken by Obama at Notre Dame?

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions

Nice and sweet eh? You would think this statement means that they want to REDUCE the number of abortions.

But if you thought that you would be wrong. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, met with Obama aides at the White House a few days before the speech with dozens of others who had different views of abortion.

Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They’ll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.

But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.

Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.

I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal. The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs — programs which began in the 1970s — and they’ve clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.

Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”

The room was silent.

The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”

Huh? If you reduce the need then the number of abortions are reduced. Just plain ole common sense. As Wendy asks in the article, is he ok then with unneeded abortions?

Wendy describes why this exchange came about. In a nutshell….abortion groups understood they needed to soften their no compromise stance on abortion after the 2004 election. What did they do? Changed the language, not their policy:

The LA Times interviewed me on this strategy and reported: “Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that ‘it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing — really, to trick people.’”

Howard Dean, then head of the Democratic National Committee, validated my concern. He told NBC’s Tim Russert: “We can change our vocabulary, but I don’t think we ought to change our principles.”

By all his actions so far, Obama is following this plan.

As usual, Obama is all talk. Elequoent speeches with flowery language intended to say nothing but evoke emotion. And this is exactly what we are getting on the abortion issue…..same ole, same ole.

With partially nude photos of her popping up on Web sites questioning her Christian credentials, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean has fired back, claiming the racy pictures are just modeling shots and vowing to continue her battle against same-sex marriage.

“I am a Christian, and I am a model,” Prejean said in a statement released overnight to the media. “Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be.”

~~~

The Web site thedirty.com… claimed that it had six pictures of Prejean. As of Tuesday morning, it had posted one on its site. The picture shows Prejean wearing nothing but a pair of revealing pink panties and smiling over her shoulder at the camera. Her breasts are covered by her arm.

The picture was deemed too racy to be shown on the TODAY Show.

Too “racy” for the TODAY Show? Give me a break! A year ago, the Today Show had no issue with showing a “racy” photo of influential teen star, Miley Cyrus. Make no mistake: They’re only feigning the photo is too risque for their viewing audience, because they share an agenda with like-minded liberals, out to nail another conservative to a cross.

They’re dragging Prejean through the mud for saying the following:

“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage; and you know what? I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Oh, how outrageous that was! That she expressed a personal opinion! That she exercised the freedom of speech liberal “progressives” so love to champion. Oh, wait…I see the problem: She expressed a conservative opinion and viewpoint. Hence, the indignation and attempt to ridicule and slime her.

Meanwhile, we have a PotUS who also claims to read the Bible and who has stated a similar view. To the Chicago Tribune:

“I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Where is the lefty outrage? Oh, I get it: Prejean was contesting for the highly exalted Miss USA distinction. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned to be elected to the lowly office of President of the United States of America. It all makes sense to me, now. He doesn’t really mean it.

Maybe liberals are giving now-President Obama a free pass on his hate-filled, anti-gay, hurtful and insensitive comments because they believe that in his heart, he does sympathize with the plight of gay marriage; that he is merely expressing what is politically necessary and expedient for him to say. Supporting the traditional definition of marriage is the position and belief of the mainstream majority in America.

Of course, if this is the case, then it makes President Obama a weak, moral coward for not standing up for core beliefs and principles; and Prejean a hero for standing up and defending her beliefs amidst a hailstorm of criticism from the liberal elites in the media. Obama saying anything to win the presidency; Prejean saying what she believes, even if it costs her the crown.

And if you truly think it scandalous that Prejean posed for “racy” photos prior to running for Miss USA. May I remind you of the “racy” photos of Obama before he ran for president. These were leaked to us at Flopping Aces, through a simple Google search, and are highly graphic and tastelessly tabloidian.

Flopping Aces had serious reservations over whether or not to republish these well-known topless Obama photos, as they are deemed inappropriate for our younger readers; and deemed “extremely racy” even by FA standards. But after careful deliberation through long hours into the night and much hand-wringing, we feel it important enough that these be published in a responsible manner and not merely to drive-up our readership and FA merchandise sales. Our objective isn’t sensationalism and agenda-driven right-wing propaganda; but an honest desire to expose mainstream media hypocrisy and liberal elitism (Warning!: Graphic photos- may be inappropriate for all ages):

These topless photos of the PotUS before he knew he would become the dignified leader of the free world have been floating around out there for a couple of years now….and the media uproar today is all but silent on them.

Quite revealing….

First…some background.

On March 27th of this year Hillary Clinton accepted a Planned Parenthood award called the Margaret Sanger Award. So named because Sanger is the founder of the group, originally called the American Birth Control League. She had this to say about it’s founder:

Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.

Now….for those who know Sanger’s history, the statement above should shock you. As it did to Nebraska congressman Jeff Fortenberry who said the following during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 22nd:

Your remarks last month, when you called Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a person whom you enormously admire, were stunning to me. Margaret Sanger clearly embraced bigotry and racism. She advocated for the elimination of the disabled, the downtrodden and the black child. In one of her writings, she said, “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” I don’t believe these ideologies have a place in our pluralistic society. And you went on to say that you will use American foreign policy in your position to further reproductive rights, which includes abortion, across the globe.

Madame Secretary, I don’t believe we should use American foreign policy to export abortion. This will undermine, in my view, our foreign relations in many areas throughout the world, including Latin America and Africa and among Muslim peoples. Promoting the international abortion industry is an imposition of our own woundedness upon others. Abortion has caused tremendous grief in this society, and its export I believe will be seen as a form of neocolonialism that is paternalistic and elitist and an assault on the dignity especially of the poor and vulnerable. I believe women deserve better, women throughout the world deserve better.

Her answer:

Well, Congressman, let me say with respect to your comments about Margaret Sanger, you know, I admire Thomas Jefferson. I admire his words and his leadership and I deplore his unrepentant slaveholding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer in trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies and I deplore statements that you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things that we admire and things we deplore.

But Thomas Jefferson didn’t make it his life’s work to promote slavery and actually opposed slavery:

As for Jefferson, he opposed slavery–as both John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln argued in their own times. The primary principle that animated his political thought, his vision, is the “self-evident” truth “that all men are created equal.” The fact that he continued to own slaves until his death in 1826 is in many ways a contradiction of his political vision. It can be attributed partly to the selfishness described by Jefferson himself in his Notes on the State of Virginia, that “no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him.” It can also be partly attributed to Jefferson’s prudential judgment that a gradual emancipation combined with colonization would be preferable to the immediate emancipation of millions of free blacks into a virulently racist society.

Margaret Sanger on the other hand DID make it her life’s work to promote eugenics. The VISION that promoted the weeding out of the “undesirables” in the human race. Hitler used the eugenics theory to justify his master race theory and ultimately ended with the Holocaust

Some quotes from the “great” Sanger:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” [speaking about the poor and immigrants]
Pivot of Civilization

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble – Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College: Massachusetts.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child,”
Birth Control Review, April 1932

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
“The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

More here.

Which brings me to this great interview of Angela Franks, author of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, by Glenn Beck on Margaret Sanger, the progessive movement, and Hillary/Obama’s support of them: (h/t MisUnderstimated)

Margaret Sanger is the model from which progressives are molded from….and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prime examples of a progressive.

And after today they are now in complete control of this country with the super majority they have long desired.

Wow – Can’t touch that!

Ironically, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) received 29 complaints of sexism regarding this advertisement.Upon review, the agency rejected these whiny complaints, rightly so.

It is disturbing that a tongue in cheek anniversary video would rise the ire of feminists. Particularly in light of the recent reports of a pregnant gang rape victim in Saudi Arabia being sentenced to 100 lashes. The widespread silence from these same misogynists (yes, I’m talking to you, Camille Paglia) who complained about the Virgin Atlantic video is deafening.

Conservativism and the Religious Right has been effectively demonized in the popular culture while liberalism has effectively been mainstreamed into our TV sets and newspapers. And politics is nothing but perception. The real battle is not in the polls but in the courts, schools, media, and popular culture. And the Republican party has surrendered too many of these battlefields to the enemy. This does nothing but help us to lose elections.

The Problem: Politics vs. Perception

To the surprise of many conservative Catholics, twice of many Catholics voted for obama then McCain, despite Obama’s very pro-abortion record. This trend, if it continues, could spell death for the Conservative movement. And why is this the case? Well, the image of conservatives have defectively suffered. It’s leadership has lacked the ability to define itself, and thus allowed the liberals to do it for them in a negative light and thus claim the moral high ground, This is relatively the same as having Saddam Hussein sit in the Human Rights commission. (which is not too far off from others that have been in that seat) So what is a good conservative to do?

First, we must recognize that your neighborhood Pravda media outlet is just as important as the electoral college and just as much as an opponent as the Democrats. Again, the image of the party has suffered at t it’s own hands, thanks to people like Foley and the abandonment of it’s Conservative principles. But does dealing with an organization whose primary goal is your failure really in your best interest?

And since we can’t force all the libs to Canada and give them weekly rations of granola and John Stewart we must get back to the grassroots and take back our schools. media, and even TV. How is easy. Ask Ron Paul, or Dean, or even Obama. The libs have shown how to do this for decades. Conservatives need to not be afraid to speak out, and need to get involved in their neighborhood schools and communities. And they need to start mentoring conservatives in the judicial and journalistic communities. Only thorough the grassroots will we rebuild our party. And then, and only then, can we make them defend their values and messed up logic.

Let’s make them defend how taking money away from business owners helps the economy, or how murderers deserve more protection then the unborn., or how weakening our military or our values makes our country stronger or safer. Ignorance is strength. Most people know that classic line from Orwell. But how many of them recognize this present day doublethink?

The lying media haw shown in this election that they are the Ministry of Truth. So the questions I ask the Republicans is this. Why deal with the media? If your neighbor said bad things about you and lied about you every chance they got, you would shun the neighbor, right? Well, why validate the authority of there media by continuing to deal with it?

The Consequences: More then Just an Election Loss.

There are two kinds of people, people who think government is the solution to your problems, and those that think individualism and hard work is the solution to life’s problems. The fact the biggest killer of people in human history your own government. might come as a surprise to them. But why would you trust the government as it is inefficient and has as one of it’s primary goals, to increase it’s own power and wealth. Perhaps they makes sense the Kool-aid drinkers who think Mat Damon is a good actor or who thinks a man who will unite us belonged to a racist church. Barack, like an Eddie Brickel song, says little of substance, but just looks good doing it, The presidency is not an episode of Survivor, but the average person knows more about Survivor or an America idol contestant then the platform of the man they voted for. I might give them a break, as it is easier to find Hoffa’s body then to nail him down on a position. It that much of a leap that we think a Latin American terrorist is a good role model that then we would thin k a friend of a terrorist would be a good president. But that is liberalism for you.

The liberal grip on our country will also extend itself into our foreign policy, which will only be to our detriment. We cannot win the war if we cannot even recognize the enemy or if we do not think the fight is worth fighting. And boy could that lack of foresight cost us. How many of our present problems are the result of abandoning friendly regimes and allowing hostile regimes to replace them? The price of an election loss can be more then a change in the division of red states to blue states. Liberalism makes nothing stronger, it only makes them weaker. If liberalism and socialism worked, Europe would not be abandoning it now and only embraced by fools like Chavez.

Why Culture Matters.

Social Darwinism :

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.

A long time ago I became interested in why evil people, why people like Beria can kill millions and still sleep at night. Human nature often is a study of contradictions as most of us share a little of the best and worst of human nature. But some of us are capable of things that make the rest of us vomit and still be able to enjoy a fine meal afterwards. So why do they do this? Some of the most frightening criminals operated on Machiavellian principles that were used to justify some of the worst crimes against humanity. One of these principles was Social Darwinism.

That is the result from a quick search of Social Darwinism on the net. Just to start off, I am not a fan of Nietzsche or Malthus, and remember well that Hitler used the theory to justify the evils of National Socialism. (By the way, is it not odd that anything National Socialism embraced is evil when on the other hand, the two bigger killers of humanity are Stalin and Mao, and liberals continue to embrace Communism and it’s child, Socialism.) Hitler was an evil man but he was right in one respect, culture does play a major role in the destiny of a society. (And no, in no way, does it justify what he did. He also thought the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, which it was, but was a lot nicer then the terms the Kaiser would have proposed if he won …) Any biologist would agree that an organism’s ability to defend itself and to procreate affects it’s survivability, so why would the case also be for societies, culture, and for sociologists. So with this in mind, I want to introduce a new term: Cultural Darwinism. The theory that the values and beliefs of a culture determine it’s relative survivability against other competing cultures.

So, is there anything to this idea? Have liberal values affected our country’s birthrate and ability to defend itself? Notice how on the average European birthrates have fallen in secular societies and in heavily liberal states in the United States, and only through immigration of non-Europeans has this decline been offset.

European Birth Rate Declines

The natural increase in Europe’s population is slowing and may start a steep decline within a few decades, researchers say.

Researchers writing in the journal Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.

www.cbsnews.com…
“> from CBS News

Worried European governments are crafting natalist policies to nudge couples to have more children, from offering better child care to monthly stipends keyed to family size. But why are these policies necessary in the first place? I used to date a liberal feminist who demeaned her sister who chose to be a stay at home mom and once whished her mom had not “wasted her life” raising her. And to repeat what I said in Sacrificing Society on an Alter of Choice, how can a philosophy that celebrates abortion rather then motherhood not be destructive? On an alter of choice more babies have been aborted since Roe then all the deaths in the Civil War, World War I, and WWII combined.

Robertson: Europe committing “racial suicide”

Summary: Pat Robertson said, “Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate.”

During an edition of Christian Broadcasting Network’s (CBN) The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that “Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate.” Robertson blamed the declining birth rate on the existential philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, which, according to Robertson, “has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe” and has left Europeans without “a faith in the future.”
from MediaMatters

Pat Robinson does go off on the deep end sometimes, but in this case he is right. And as much as I disagree with Pat Buchanan’s isolationist views, in a real sense this is a “Death of the West” if these trends continue.

But what about the other criteria of survivability, the ability to defend yourself? As a case in point, Traditional France lost a quarter millions soldiers in one battle, (Verdun) but secular France lost 9 men in one battle (Afghanistan) and considered pulling their troops. Secularism simply cannot defend itself adequately. For another example, let’s take a look and the dismal record of liberal Jimmy Carter’s joke of a foreign policy.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that[North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”

Almost all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” was “overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
from Vcrisis

Carter was shocked when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Bill Clinton was attacked by Al-Qaeda repeatedly and did nothing until the Lewinski scandal. An now it is the likes of Dean and Murtha that follow along in this proud tradition. A culture that demonizes and handicaps it’s own military and views it’s enemies higher their own country is not only weak, but suicidal. Simply, how can you defeat the enemy when you cannot even recognize the enemy or even name the enemy? The lying media won’t even call some terrorists what they are, terrorists.

Culture does Matter.

Names are everything. A good name makes good ideas sound bad and bad ideas sound good. Take the ACLU. The ACLU was founded by Communists and is not dedicated to destroying Christian values in this country. But they cannot call themselves the Anti Christian Communists Union, because then they will not get as much money from corporate America. Liberals get away with being liberals only because they have standing armies to protect them. Without a standing army, liberals would have another name or two, namely the enslaved or dead.

Sadly, because of the defects in human nature, there will always be war. And those that believe that this will change, and that you can stop evil be being nice to it also goes by the name of liberal, but in another time they were called the stupid, or simple, or delusional. But it does not matter if one has a bad idea if you can make it sound good and demonize those that do not agree with you. For those that control names control words, and thus thoughts and society.

And that is the danger with out present day society.

Here’s a recent idiotorial from the Chronically San Franciscan by a Professor Robert Jensen, Men Being Men is a Bad deal: Guys Should Evolve Beyond Masculinity:

“Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women, but for us. We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It’s time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.”

Amazingly, in Jenson’s bizarro world, our worst social problems are not caused by an absence of real men, but by their very presence: “masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control ‘their’ women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery.”

from” title=”http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/10/men-without-chests-and-women-without.html\”>from” class=”autohyperlink” target=”_blank”>onecosmos.blogspot.com… OneCosmos

The idea that getting rid of masculinity should be absurd to most anyone, but it is not to some that teach our young adults and influence their values.

Think I am reaching. Look at our present day TV and how it demeans fatherhood. It is the male, often a white male, that is the lazy and stupid one in the show who is always getting in trouble. And if you think fatherhood does not matter, just take a look at the effects of the death of the nuclear family with the African-American community The thought that a de-masculinized society will roll over in the face of an aggressor should seem obvious, but it is not to the permanently simple. Like with any species, what determines the survivability of a nation is it’s ability to defend itself and ability to procreate.

Secular Liberalism fails in both categories. Culture does matter, and now even more as we are in the mist of a cultural war as we struggle to win a very real world war. This, more then any other factor is why I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Social Darwinism is real and will determine if the west will survive at all. For in the end, either the west will defeat secularism and survive or the west will stay secular and fall.

History is nothing but competing nations and cultures, And the winner of the contests of history is not always the most technically advanced, but the ones with the strongest will and culture. If our country is to survive as a great country, then conservatives must do more then worry about the elections and poll numbers. There is a very real war to fight for America’s culture. And there are battles raging every day. For the survival of Democracy is still an open question, and it seems unlikely that those who embrace socialism, multiculturalism, and moral relativism will be the ones to ensure it’s survival and ensure Democracy is more then just a footnote in the pages of history. For in the end, liberals are doomed, as they either will be defeated by the conservatives in the us for the soul of this country or they and their allies will be defeated by Islam in the growing cultural war.

Losing the battle will in the end lose us the war.

Back in June:

President Bush has nominated Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody to take over the Army’s Materiel Command as a four-star general, and if confirmed by the Senate she would be the first woman in U.S. history to receive such a high military rank.

In announcing the nomination yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates praised Dunwoody’s “extraordinary leadership and devotion to duty” and called the choice “an historic occasion.” There are 57 active-duty female general officers in the U.S. armed forces, five of whom are three-star generals. About 5 percent of the Army’s general officers are women.

General Dunwoody achieved that promotion on Friday.

From her speech:

“Thirty-three years after I took the oath as a second lieutenant, I have to tell you this is not exactly how I envisioned my life unfolding,” she told a standing-room-only auditorium. “Even as a young kid, all I ever wanted to do was teach physical education and raise a family.”

“It was clear to me that my Army experience was just going to be a two-year detour en route to my fitness profession,” she added. “So when asked, ‘Ann, did you ever think you were going to be a general officer, to say nothing about a four-star?’ I say, ‘Not in my wildest dreams.’

“This promotion has taken me back in time like no other event in my entire life,” she said. “And I didn’t appreciate the enormity of the events until tidal waves of cards, letters, and e-mails started coming my way.

“And I’ve heard from men and women, from every branch of service, from every region of our country, and every corner of the world. I’ve heard from moms and dads who see this promotion as a beacon of home for their own daughters and after affirmation that anything is possible through hard work and commitment.

“And I’ve heard from women veterans of all wars, many who just wanted to say congratulations; some who just wanted to say thanks; and still other who just wanted to say they were so happy this day had finally come.”

Lt. General Dunwoody nominated to receive 4th star
Jun 23, 2008
The Defense Department announced today, June 23, Lt. Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody is nominated for appointment to the rank of general and assignment as U.S. Army Materiel Command commanding general.

If confirmed by Congress, Dunwoody would become the first woman in the U.S. Armed Forces to attain the rank of general. Approximately five percent of general officers in the Army are women, which includes mobilized Army Reserve and Army National Guard general officers.

“Lt. Gen. Dunwoody’s leadership, character and career have best prepared her to lead the Army Materiel Command,” said Secretary of the Army Pete Geren. “She will bring 33 years of experience to over 56 thousand Soldiers, DA Civilians, and their Families in 40 states and 50 countries as she serves as the next commanding general of Army Materiel Command.”

Prior to taking her current assignment as deputy commanding general and chief of staff, U.S. Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., Dunwoody served as the deputy chief of staff, G-4 at the Pentagon. She was responsible for ensuring warfighters had the necessary supplies and services, and that logisticians had the tools and equipment necessary to deliver those supplies and services to Soldiers around the globe.

“This is an important day for the Dunwoody family, the military and the Nation,” said Gen. George W. Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army. “Lt. Gen. Dunwoody’s nomination not only underscores her significant contributions and success throughout 33 years of service, but also shows the level of possible opportunity in our Army’s diverse, quality all-volunteer force. Our Nation will continue to benefit from Lt. Gen. Dunwoody’s leadership as the Army continues to build strength from our diversity.”

Dunwoody, a native of New York, received a direct commission after graduating from the State University of New York in 1975. Since her first assignment in 1976 as a platoon leader at Fort Sill, Okla., Dunwoody has commanded at every level. Dunwoody comes from a family with a long tradition of military service, including her great grandfather, grandfather, father, brother, sister, niece and husband.

I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement,” said Dunwoody. “I grew up in a family that didn’t know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career … that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform. My focus right now is to be the best deputy I can be.”

Dunwoody’s awards and badges include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Master Parachutist Badge, Parachutist Rigger Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge.

Title of this post inspired by Pondering Penguin

Now, Governor Sarah Palin is calling him on it.
link

“Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate pay roll records women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get,” Palin said of Obama. “That’s 9,000 dollars less every year that he pays the guys. Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive?”