HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!

Psst….newer posts below.

At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.

It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.

Why would anybody on Capitol Hill even consider such a patently partisan move, which is guaranteed to make Democrats look small and ridiculous? Do they so fear the inevitable comparisons between the Great Communicator and his teleprompted successor in the White House?

Petty is an understatement, but then, what would you expect from a bunch of weasels that have turned pettiness into an artform.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shocked the political word Friday afternoon by announcing that she will step down at the end of the month and transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell — a move that throws into doubt her political future and a potential run for president in 2012.

Palin, last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee, made the surprise announcement from her home in Wasilla, flanked by her husband, Todd, and family and state commissioners.

“I never believed that I nor anyone else needs a title to do this, to make a difference,” she said. “I’m determined to take the right path for Alaska, even though it is unconventional and it’s not so comfortable.”

Parnell will be inaugurated at the governor’s picnic in Fairbanks at the end of the month, Palin said.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don’t blame her, it is quite surprising. Although she is one tough lady, who needs the garbage the left keep shoving out? I think she’s been quite a class act, all while the low class has been slamming her, and her family.

Would I support her candidacy for POTUS in 2012? Seriously, I don’t know. At this point in time, she’s about the most conservative, but then, it’s early yet, and I’d very much like to concentrate on 2010, and getting that piece of crap Speaker a one way ticket back to La La Land, with a whole slew of her cronies.

The story is told that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention an anxious lady asked him what kind of government they had given us. His famous reply was: “A republic, Madam… if you can keep it.” And, for the most part, we Americans have been trying to keep it. But “change” is in the air.

Have you noticed how the Democratic Party has stopped denying its socialist tendencies?

Months ago, as I began to write about the dangers of socialism to America, (and how the Democratic Party has become a sort of Democratic/Socialist party) I was stunned when they, the democrats, did not refute it! See, I had expected democrats to deny any connection to socialism. But they didn’t. It was then that it struck me… they don’t deny it because they can’t. Apparently, they have embraced socialism.

Read the rest here.  Worth your time.

THE flags:

Setting up, booths and such:

Judson did a great job working his hinder, and a lot of other folks’ as well, to get this pull together.

A few of the speakers:

And the grand finale, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson:

He was fantastic! There are so many who need to listen to what this man has to say! Believe me, you’ll be impressed, and you’ll learn a great deal!

A couple of the signs:

The hard working ladies of TPN:

And one of my favorite t-shirts:

I’ve got a WHOLE lot more pictures, but like I said….I’m totally pooped! All in all…..a good day!

Nuts, I forgot the picture of the ‘required dissenters’, which if I heard correctly this morning, was reporting as a couple of dozen. Looked more like 6 at the most to me, but maybe they were talking about something different:

A local teacher accidentally put pornography into a DVD that was meant to be filled with school memories from the past year, and nobody caught the error until after it was sent home, shocking parents and students alike.

Parents of students who attend Isabelle Jackson Elementary said that the woman is a good teacher, but just made a mistake that may become the most embarrassing moment of their life.

The offending DVD starts with a menu screen that displays various school trips and functions, and when you click on one of them, you see kids in a classroom sharing stories. They start clapping, then the video suddenly cuts to sex.

“It goes from my son, straight to her on the couch,” said ‘Joe,’ who saw the video along with his son and did not wish to be identified. “My son’s reaction was, ‘Dad, is that Ms. Defanti?’”

“We were up till midnight doing the ‘birds and the bees,’” he added.

The person in the video turned out to be Isabelle Jackson Elementary fifth grade teacher Crystal Defanti.

“All she could say was that it was a horrible mix up,” Joe said.

The teacher called his home the day after his child got the DVD, crying hysterically, profusely apologizing and asking the man and his wife to call every parent they knew to stop their kids from seeing the DVD too.

The Elk Grove Unified School District says they are investigating, but legal experts say it’s unlikely that the teacher will lose her job.

“It’s felony stupid, but it’s not a crime,” said defense expert Ken Rosenfeld. “Is it something that she should be disciplined for? Absolutely, but fired for? She didn’t intend for this to happen.” 

Not only that, but the DVD was sent to the TV station and played on air!! 

I hope that she does keep her job,  but I wonder how she will be able to show her face.  I actually feel a little sorry for her!!  “Felony stupid” is an apt description.

Gives a whole new meaning to Hot for Teacher, eh?  *snicker*

We’re going to be there. Are you?

Just a snippet:

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and every other gentlemen who assisted in the writing of the Declaration of Independence put aside their personal beliefs in order to not misguide the meaning of true freedom. But  they never intended to have God removed from our American foundation! Any and every individual living in this country has the right to believe how they choose based on every individuals freewill because this is the core principle in the meaning of love and in order to hold this country together we must keep God in front!

Love is free and not directed!

George Washington once said,”It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

There is a great misconception on the issue of church and state.  No where in the U.S. Constitution is the phrase “separation of church and state”.  NO WHERE!  I dare you to find it!  It’s not there!

Anyway, The Foundry has some words on this so called joke of a ‘townhall meeting”.

Yesterday, President Obama held a town hall event in order to “sell his health care message to the public” during Congress’ July 4th recess. However, worried that the President cannot answer tough questions about his plan for health care reform, White House officials carefully screened each member of the audience in attendance and each question asked.

This time, the mainstream media took note, even grilling White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs on the choreographed spectacle.  In fact, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, not known as a conservative sympathizer, even lamented: “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences. It’s blatant. They don’t give a d–n if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.” She added: “What the h-ll do they think we are, puppets?”

In answer to Helen’s question……YES!  They think you are puppets, because that’s EXACTLY what you, and your fellow joke of journalists have been!  Puppets!

The AP reported: “Some of Obama’s questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.”

With the elaborate choreography President Obama managed to talk a good talk, despite his rhetoric not matching his plans. For example he said: “We need a permanent solution that when you lose your job, or change jobs, you can still keep your health insurance.”  Absolutely. Do you lose your car or life insurance when you change your job? Of course not. The same should be true for your most important coverage: health insurance.

Heritage’s Bob Moffit, at a recent Congressional hearing, testified that “Americans need portability. If we had portability in health insurance that was tied to the person and not where they worked, the numbers of the uninsured would drop dramatically.“  Unfortunately, the President’s plan doesn’t offer this portability.  Obama went on to deliver another one of his prized pieces of health care rhetoric: “If [private insurance] is such a great deal, why are [insurers] so concerned about government competing with private plans?”

The President has been searching for the logic on this one, and luckily it’s easy to explain. There’s no real competition when the Referee making the rules is also playing the game; it’s a fixed competition. Congress’ ability to pay doctors and other providers less will hide the true cost of the public plan. Undercutting private insurance will drive enrollment to the public plan. That’s not competition on a level playing field.

While bemoaning that Congress moves slowly on legislation, he offered this analysis of our Constitutional government three days before the 4th of July, saying: “Part of that is the way the Constitution is designed. We don’t have coups [de’tat] or governments collapsing. The disadvantage is it’s hard for us to make great, big, bold steps.”

At Heritage, we tend to think that one of the more important aspects of the Constitution is the very fact that it is so difficult to take “great, big, bold steps.” Perhaps, on America’s upcoming 233rd birthday, this is a quaint idea. Some still tend to agree with us, however. The point is health care reform doesn’t need to be so radical that the Constitution holds it back. There are other ways to fix health care that won’t intrude into our daily lives or our personal choices.

Nevertheless, the President is going to ask you to hold his hand and jump off the cliff with him, saying: “We’re in one of those rare moments where everybody is ready to move into the future. We just can’t be scared.”  Frankly, when a plan is so big, so intrusive and so expensive to every American’s life that the President feels the Constitution might hinder its approval, you should be scared.

This only thing that seriously needs to be fixed right now is the mess this administration and it’s minions in Congress have done to this nation.  Time to rip the rug out from under them!

So, there it is.  downtown, and hilly things on the side.  Whoo hoo!    Yeah, I’m all excited too. 

John has a Granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a late model car, wears all the latest fashions, and also likes going out and eating out a lot. Ashley campaigned hard for Obama, and after he won the election she made sure her Grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received more than an earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that Obama won the election.

Ashley recently found herself short of cash and cannot pay her bills, again. As she has done many other times in the past, she emailed her Grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:

“Sweetheart, I am replying to your request for more money. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and am sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your Grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own….the ‘Ashley Economic Plan’. Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are highly productive, wage-earning tax payers. As you know, we have lived a comfortable life and in return have forgone many things like fancy vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But this plan has changed. Your president is significantly raising our personal and business taxes. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less income for us. Less income means we must cut back on many business and personal expenditures. One example is, we were forced to let go of our receptionist today. You know her. She always gave you candy when you visited my office. Did you know she worked for us for the past 18 years? I can’t afford her anymore.

That is a taste of the business side. Some personal economic affects of Obama’s new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. Judging from your Email requesting more money, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct telephone number for the White House. You, yourself, repeatedly told me I was foolish to vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the people’s president and is going to help every American live a better life. Based upon everything you have told me and things we heard from him as he campaigned, I am sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check or transfer money into your checking account. Have him call me for the transaction and account numbers, which by now I know by heart.

Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life: Those who vote for the president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.). What Obama voters don’t seem to realize is all of the “government’s” money he is ‘redistributing’ to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (deemed “less fortunate”) comes from tax money collected from income tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, “Only the richest of the rich will be affected”? Guess what, honey? Because of our business, your Grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way. But in the real world, we are far from it. But, as you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money. Less money for everything, including granddaughters.

Congratulations on your choice for “change”. For future reference, I encourage you to attempt to add up the total value of the gifts and money you’ve received from us over the years, and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.

Remember, we love you dearly… but from now on you’ll need to call the number referenced above when you need help.

Good luck, sweetheart.

Love, Grandpa

Shared by Lisa Marie via Facebook.

Stop the ACLU has a pretty good break down.  Even the libby press is getting fed up with the White House’s BS.  Heh.

With the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano this week, we can now report that Sonia Sotomayor is even crazier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To recap the famous Ricci case, in 2003, the city of New Haven threw out the results of a firefighters’ test — which had been expressly designed to be race-neutral — because only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to receive immediate promotions, whereas blacks who took the test did well enough only to be eligible for promotions down the line.

Inasmuch as the high-scoring white and Hispanic firemen were denied promotions solely because of their race, they sued the city for race discrimination.

Obama’s Justice-designate Sotomayor threw out their lawsuit in a sneaky, unsigned opinion — the judicial equivalent of “talk to the hand.” She upheld the city’s race discrimination against white and Hispanic firemen on the grounds that the test had a “disparate impact” on blacks, meaning that it failed to promote some magical percentage of blacks.

This strict quota regime was dressed up by the city — and by Sotomayor’s opinion — as a reasonable reaction to the threat of lawsuits by blacks who were not promoted.

That’s a complicated way of saying: Racial quotas are peachy.

According to Sotomayor, any test that gets the numbers wrong — whatever “wrong” means in any given context of professions, populations, applicants, workers, etc. — is grounds for a lawsuit, which in turn, is grounds for an employer to engage in race discrimination against disfavored racial groups, such as white men.

Consequently, the only legal avenue available to employers under Sotomayor’s ruling is always to impose strict racial quotas in making hiring and promotion decisions.

Say, if the threat of a lawsuit permits the government to ignore the Constitution, can pro-lifers get New Haven to shut down all abortion clinics by threatening to sue them? There’s no question but that abortion clinics have a “disparate impact” on black babies.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor’s endorsement of racial quotas.

But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor’s holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the dissent clearly stated that “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone.”

Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.

The one advantage Sotomayor’s talk-to-the-hand opinion has over Justice Ginsburg’s prolix dissent is that brevity prevented Sotomayor from having to explain why quotas aren’t quotas.

That was left to Ginsburg.

Liberals desperately want race quotas — as long as quotas never come to their offices.

But they can’t say that, so instead they talk in circles for 10 hours straight, until everyone else is exhausted, and then, when no one is paying attention, they announce: So we’re all agreed — we will have racial quotas.

Based on her lifetime of experience working as a firefighter, Ginsburg said: “Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least.” Liberals prefer a more objective test, such as race.

Isn’t excelling on written tests how Ruth Bader Ginsburg got where she is? It’s curious how people whose entire careers are based on doing well on tests find them so irrelevant to other people’s jobs.

In the middle of a fire, it can either be a great idea or the worst possible idea to open a door. An excellent method for finding out if your next fire chief knows the correct answer is a written test.

Unleashing the canard of all race-obsessed liberals, Ginsburg observed that courts have found that a fire officer’s job “involves complex behaviors, good interpersonal skills, the ability to make decisions under tremendous pressure, and a host of other abilities — none of which is easily measured by a written, multiple choice test.”

So does a lawyer’s job. And yet attorneys with absolutely no “interpersonal skills” get cushy jobs and extravagant salaries on the basis of their commendable performance on all manner of written tests, from multiple choice LSATs and bar exams to written law school exams.

I note that Ginsburg has not shown any particular interest in rectifying the “disparate impact” of legal exams: She never hired a single black law clerk out of the dozens she employed in more than a decade as an appeals court judge. (Her hiring practices on the Supreme Court are a state secret, but I can state with supreme certainty that her clerks do not reflect the racial mix of Washington, D.C.)

But liberals think other people’s jobs are a joke, so the testing must also be a joke. That is — other than their preferred test: “Is the applicant black, female or otherwise handicapped?”

There is no test that can prove all things about an employee and so there is no test that can’t be derided by the race-mongers. Which is exactly the point. Get rid of all tests — except for lawyers who graduated at the top of their law school classes at Columbia, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Then liberals are free to impose racial quotas on other people’s jobs without limit.

As crazy as this is, even Ginsburg and the other dissenters made a big point of pretending there was some flaw in this particular test. None adopted Sotomayor’s position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination.

This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.