Based on her last two columns, it’s safe to say that Kirsten Powers won’t agree with the Agenda Media’s mistreatment of Gov. Palin. Here’s a dose of Ms. Powers’ latest indignation and irritation with the Agenda Media and the Irrational Left:

On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she’s savaged for being a working mother.

Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good ‘ole girls telling you what to think.

Ladies, don’t you worry your pretty little heads about deciding what you believe; the audaciously named National Organization for Women is here to speak on your behalf.

It’s apparent that Ms. Powers is pissed at the ‘Good Ole Girls Network’. The initially stated goal of feminism was to liberate women. In fact, it was first titled the Women’s Liberation Movement. Women burning their bras was meant as a symbol of liberation.

Today, NOW and NARAL Pro Choice USA aren’t about liberation. They’re about control. Like Ms. Powers says, they want to speak for women. It seems to me that that’s pretty demeaning to women. I can’t for the life of me figure out why that’d appeal to suburban women woters.

Ms. Powers was just getting started. Here’s another shot at the Agenda Media:

Time for a little truth in advertising.

Liberal women have been furiously penning identical screeds against Sarah Palin, blasting McCain for not understanding women and then announcing, “Now, let me speak on behalf of all women and tell you what women want in a candidate.”

Talk about condescending.

Exactly right, Kirsten. That’s extremely condescending. It’s insulting to the brilliant women leaders that we see virtually everywhere we turn. It’s worth noting that these organizations’ condescension is based in fear. They know that they’re finished if women follow Sarah Palin’s lead, which they’ll do if she’s elected.

Here’s one last shot:

Today, nobody could blame any woman for not understanding a movement that purports to support equality for women but sits by silently as liberal radio host Ed Schultz uses “bimbo alert” to refer to Palin, and calls her a bad mother on CNN.

Why does Ed Shultz get away with such smears? He’s peddling in the most vile smears imaginable. Whether organizations like NOW or NARAL Pro Choice USA agree with Gov. Palin politically or not, they shouldn’t tolerate the mistreatment of women.

It speaks volumes that Kirsten Powers used her bully pulpit but NOW and NARAL Pro Choice USA kept their mouths shut when smear merchants attacked Gov. Palin. It’s apparent to me that Ms. Powers got the integrity and character that NOW and NARAL Pro Choice USA are missing.

Technorati Tags: Sarah Palin, Kirsten Powers, NOW, NARAL Pro Choice USA, Ed Shultz, Agenda Media, Women’s Liberation, Sexism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Speaking of thinking or one’s self, one wonders what Sarah is thinking with Troopergate.

   I think the biggest threat in Troopergate is that Palin is quickly loosing her outsider persona and is quickly establishing herself as an (R) with inside the Beltway gravitas.

   Firstly she is being investigated by a bipartisan Legislative Committee for Abuse of Power and has claimed she wants to get to the bottom of the the ‘alleged vendetta firing’ of Monegan, much as when Bush claiming wanted to get to the bottom of who leaked classified material on Valerie Plame.

   Like “W” who would fire whoever did it, and to follow through he would have had to fire his-own-self, Sarah might have to discipline her-self, too.

   Sarah claimed, there was ABSOLUTELY NO PRESSURE OF ANY KIND brought upon Monegan to fire Wooten, but as with Libby, her aide Frank Bailey has been found to have done just that, on a taped conversation.

   Sarah has invoked the “plausible deniability” defense, saying, ‘Okay pressure was brought on Monegan to fire Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law who she wanted fired, but she was unaware influence was being applied on Monegan to fire trooper Wooten. Monegan was instead following policy guidelines and refusing illegal pressure .

   Like Rove and Myers, Sarah’s aid Bailey did not show up for a scheduled interview. One wonders if Sarah will invoke executive privilege and if she will pardon him in the tradition of ‘(R) accountability, if he is held culpable.

   Now it appears Monegan has emails from ‘Absolutely-NO-PRESSURE-of-any-kind Sarah, in which she herself brought up Wooten with Monegan. This is not unlike the inside job where “W” knowing all along ‘who done it’, declassified the intel, while still looking to find the leaker of the ‘alleged’ classified data.

   Sarah however is in one of them “Cones of Silence”, refusing to do interviews that’ll actually ask questions, not unlike “W”z … ‘We can not comment on an ongoing investigation’ … dodge, stonewalling the very justice they claim to be seeking.

   Not only has Sarah demonstrated she can read a teleprompter well, she is fast demonstrating insider (R) executive leadership qualities …

   Snerd

   Comment by Snerd Gronk — September 5, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

2. Palin is all about choice. But only the one choice where women are not allowed to have abortions even in the case of rape or incest. Palin made the choice to have her down syndrome baby and now everyone else is forced to make that same choice even if they don’t want to. And if it’s one thing women love, it’s being told what to do.

   Comment by Liem — September 5, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

3. That’s f(R)ee-dumb, Liem!

   Snerd

   Comment by Snerd Gronk — September 5, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

4. Thats a pretty low blow Liem.
   Id expect that kind of crap from Rocky.

   Life is not always pretty and much as we’d like not all babeys are blond hair blue eyed angels, but each of them no matter how flawed are human beings. I did a community service thing for a couple weeks once with a special ed teacher who had two downs syndromne kids in her class, they don’t drool, or babble or act wierd Liem. Ive yet to meet two more effectionate and genuinely caring kids as those two, they were a pleasure to help, yes I said a PLEASURE!!

   Obama says we are our brothers keeper, I guess that only applies to the brothers we choose to allow to be born huh?
   What a phoney !!!!!

   Comment by T A Gray — September 5, 2008 @ 11:01 pm

5. So you hate it when the government ‘forces’ health care on you, but you love it when the government demands that a woman can’t make a choice that affects the rest of her life?

   But no, you’re right, women need to be told what to do.

   Comment by Liem — September 6, 2008 @ 9:17 am

6. Liem, you are right of course, why should a woman give birth to a child that is growing inside of her. Hell, why shouldnt she kill her child at any given point? After all, it is her geneticall material that made that brat so, if she decides to put a plastic bag over the head of that noisy little 6 month old, so what. It is her constitutional right. Right? Hell, why not kill the little bastard at 6 or 16? After all, your momma always told you that she brought you into this world, so she can take you out.

   Comment by Rey — September 6, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

7. First off, you call an unborn fetus/child a life and I don’t. Nothing to argue there.
   But, it’s none of my damn business and I don’t see how it’s yours either.

   Secondly, do you have adopted children? Do you put your moral high ground into actual practice and take unwanted children into your home and raise into responsible, productive adults? If you do, you made a commendable choice. If you don’t, you also had the freedom to make that choice, but you’re also full of shit.

   Comment by Liem — September 6, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

8. First off, you call an unborn fetus/child a life and I don’t. Nothing to argue there.

   It’s amazing how common sense gets lost in the shuffle. I don’t know of too many expectant mothers who get their first ultrasound and say to their husband “Honey look at our beautiful little fetus.” They’re 1,000 times more likely to say “Honey look at our beautiful little baby.”

   Next time, it’d be nice if you brought your comon sense intact. That’s assuming you have any.

   Comment by Gary Gross — September 6, 2008 @ 6:31 pm

9. Typically, Liem is changing the argument from reality to fear.

   The fact is, Liem, that a prez or veep have no say in whether abortion is legal or not. The SCOTUS can reject a state’s anti-abortion bill, but not even the Congress can make abortion legal or not legal.

   If Roe v. Wade were overturned by the SCOTUS it would then be up to the individual states to determine what level of abortion would be tolerated (or not) within the confines of each indivual state.

   But it’s always good to screed fear, isn’t it?

   Comment by Carlos — September 6, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

10. So you hate it when the government ‘forces’ health care on you, but you love it when the government demands that a woman can’t make a choice that affects the rest of her life?

    Thats right Liem, but its only a contradiction to you, because I have a different idea than you do about whats moral and immoral. It is just as immoral for a governemnt to force something not enumerated in its constitution as it is to pass laws allowing an immoral activity to continue virtually unregulated.

    Comment by T A Gray — September 6, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

11. I take it that none of you have adopted babies then? Because if you don’t, where do you get your moral authority from?

    Comment by Liem — September 7, 2008 @ 8:36 am

12. Oh so thats the new goal post position huh?
    We have to adopt a child to justify a moral teaching.

    You getting funner and funner Liem.

    How about 3 grandchildren? No probably not I guess, even though I brought their mother up in the faith. Im probably violating something about not having the politically correct number of children, that’s what goes on in Communist China. So thank you for telling and demonstrating where you and your friends who are so enamoured with the great and wonderful government to come are at. ;>)

    Comment by T A Gray — September 7, 2008 @ 1:16 pm

13. “Moral authority” doesn’t come from spouting untested or provably wrong theory, Liem. Where do you get your “moral authority” from that you sit and dispense with such gusto?

    Comment by Carlos — September 7, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

14. The pro-life argument is that if a woman does not want to keep the baby, she should give the baby up for adoption. Since abortion is not an option, those who demanded that this woman give birth despite her wishes should take in the baby in order to show their true support to the pro-life cause.

    If the baby is not adopted, the people who restricted the the woman’s choice are obligated to take care of the child through financial means. If you are unwilling to pay this social welfare, then all you have are empty demands with no real actions behind your bullshit because you have abandoned what you wanted.

    If a woman had a choice, it wouldn’t be your problem.

    Comment by Liem — September 7, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

15. But she does have a choice doesn’t she?
    And children are adopted all the time. When was the last time you heard anything about an adoption crisis? I should think if there was one, the pro choice media would be screaming about it.

    Your saying that every one that is pro life should adopt a child, or shut up.

    I appreciate your idealism, but welcome to the real world. Some do and some don’t. Others just try to raise our own responsibly, some are successful, and some aren’t.

    If your trying to get this around to the Palins daughter, I’ll tell you right now, people on the pro life side would agree the family has done the morally correct thing, so throw all the mud you want; its not going to stick.

    Comment by T A Gray — September 7, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

16. Completely irrelevant to the discussion, Liem, but that’s one of the reasons for an offering plate, as opposed to the guvmint stealing my hard-earned money and using it for abortion promotion and abortions, practices which are morally repugnant to me and which the feds have absolutely no constitutional basis to be involved with.

    And if one is repulsed by the idea of attending a religious service, there are (tax deductable) ways of financially supporting homes for unwed mothers and NPO adoption agencies, too.

    Your argument, typically, is that people just can’t tie their own shoes without government intervention, which is false on its face.

    Comment by Carlos — September 7, 2008 @ 8:22 pm

17. What? How would someone who wants freedom of choice want more government intervention? You just enjoy using that phrase even when it doesn’t make sense. And how are you ‘paying for the abortion’?

    Comment by Liem — September 7, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

18. The largest provider of abortion counselling and services is tax-subsidized. That’s how I arrived at the conclusion my taxes are used to subsidize abortion and abortion promotion.

    As for guvmint intervention, the credible surveys show most Americans are pro-life, but their voices are drowned by whackos who insist it is the fed’s job to protect abortion. It is, in fact, most certainly up to the individual states but their hands are tied by fed courts. If the issue were put to a vote in the individual states, as would be proper, most (admittedly not all) states would restrict the practice.

    Basiically, another case of the fed judiciary making law.

    Comment by Carlos — September 8, 2008 @ 5:37 am