I must admit I am guilty of not following this story .  My liberal friends have dropped a few one liners about "ignorant Christians" trying to block the mosque from being built, but until Sen. Reid took a stance I had no interest in this.   I can’t wait to see what these friends of mine think now.

This is not good news for the Tidewater area.  Naturally, our elected officials are not very happy about this  idea. If we could convince our elected officials to stop the uncontrolled spending maybe we could avoid things like this.

The article also says 56% of those polled think Obama is too liberal…

Well, life has taken an unexpected turn. Not in a bad way, but in a way that wasn’t even on my radar ten days ago. God has once again proven Himself to be faithful and active in ways that I never anticipated. While I was worrying about options A and B, God was planning option C; something I hadn’t even considered. He’s so good like that!

James Smith, you are just going to have to continue agitating without me, and you are welcome to use Sun Versus Wind as a platform. I’ll gladly give you Admin privileges.

rulerofthezoo at gmail dot com

Punished for wearing the American flag to school…on Cinco de Mayo. The horror:

Five students at a South Bay high school stirred up some controversy Wednesday for wearing t-shirts depicting red, white and blue American flags on Cinco de Mayo.

School officials at Live Oak High in Morgan Hill told the students they had to go home if they wouldn’t turn the shirts inside out.

One of the students said it appeared school administrators were worried the patriotic shirts could trigger fights…

They were facing unexcused absences because they chose to go home early rather than take off what they were wearing.

“We knew it was Cinco de Mayo. But we just came to show our flag,” said student Dominic Maciel. “We didn’t mean anything by it. We didn’t want to start anything. Nothing like that.”

Student Anthony Caravalho was also sent home for not turning his shirt inside out.

“They said we had to wear our t-shirts inside out and then we could go back to class and we said no,” said Caravalho. “It would be disrespectful to the flag by hiding it.”

Be sure to watch the video at the link. Those kids don’t strike me as troublemakers. So, how did the Mexican students react? Just as you’d expect:

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

“I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day,” Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. “We don’t deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on Fourth of July.”

Cinco de Mayo, as I understand it, is actually a relatively minor holiday…in Mexico. Their Independence Day is in September; May 5th is simply a day chosen to commemorate a military victory that, I’d guess, most of those poor, disrespected students couldn’t even name. They’ve been so inundated with the identity politics of the Left, though, that they view themselves as different and, worse, separate from the other students. They’re all Americans, but they identify with Mexican to the point that being forced to see other students wearing Old Glory on May 5th is disrespectful.

And, what does it say about the attitudes towards Mexicans that the school administration must harbor for them to conclude that the Mexican students would resort to violence? That is a lot more insulting than the American flag, and they added insult to injury by banishing the offending flag as a preemptive gesture rather than simply warn the student body to behave themselves. Racists!

The flap over this is…stupid . The man hands out pins to his staff with a different state seal, one that doesn’t feature an exposed breast-as a joke -and suddenly we’re in ‘Boobgate’.

And, even if it wasn’t a joke? So what ? If the man prefers another variation of the state seal, that’s his right. Because the design was inspired by Roman mythology the art style, naturally, echoes that of the classical period, so it is a little prudish on his part. If he’s truly bothered by such immodest displays (which I doubt), he’d better not go to any art museums or flip through any art history texts. That said, though, he’s still allowed to be a prude. I know in an age where Hollywood bimbos are photographed showing off their crotch, among other parts, it may seem a little odd for him to care about such a thing, or even joke about it, but a big deal it ain’t.

He’s decided not to use the new pins, so those of you raising a fuss win…I guess. Good grief.

The report in question is this one, prepared by actuaries at Health and Human Services and released to the public last week, more than a month after ObamaCare passed Congress. The analysis reveals what many of us expected all along, that the “reform” package will end up increasing costs. As it turns out, the administration may have had this report in hand a week before the vote was taken, but chose not to release it:

“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”

The analysis, performed by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which in the past has been identified as a “nonpolitical” office, set off alarm bells when submitted. “We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff,” says the HHS staffer, “and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary’s office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report.”

Surprise! If true, I think we can finally put the whole “most transparent administration ever” thing to rest, eh? Oh, remember how Democrats raised a big stink when companies like AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon, etc revealed-within days after the vote- they’d have to take huge charges to their earnings due to the health care package? Waxman and company declared the companies were lying (because, it was going to lower costs and everything, hahaha) and promised hearings, demanding the companies turn over financial records related to their health care costs and that executives come before Congress to explain themselves. It was nothing but a show of intimidation, and as it turns out the charges to earnings were proper all along:

In a memorandum summarizing its investigation, the Democratic staff of the committee said, “The companies acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards in submitting filings to the S.E.C. in March and April.”

Moreover, it said, “these one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules.” The committee staff said this view was confirmed by independent experts at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the American Academy of Actuaries…

Under another provision, employers may be subject to financial penalties if they do not offer health insurance to employees. Documents provided to Congress by AT&T indicate that its medical costs in 2009 were $4.7 billion, divided about equally between active employees and retirees — far more than it would pay in penalties if it did not provide coverage…

In a general analysis of the new law, Verizon said, “To avoid additional costs and regulations, employers may consider exiting the employer health market and send employees” to state-run insurance exchanges, where people can buy insurance.

You know how Obama kept telling us that if we liked our insurance we could keep it? Not so, especially if companies decide to save money by paying the penalty and dropping coverage altogether, just as Verizon suggests. Surprise!

I realize I say that as a white guy who’s only real brush with “profiling” was being watched as a teen by the ever-vigilant employees of my hometown Radio Shack as my friends and I browsed the store, but still. Here is the bill in question, in all it’s glory. It says, in part:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING…

The emphasis is my own because I wanted to point out that, in my reading of this section, reasonable suspicion would have to exist before an attempt is made to verify the individual’s immigration status. Plus, race, color, etc are expressly forbidden as being the sole reasons to check one’s “papers”. Is it likely that Arizona police are going to start yanking Latinos off the streets and demanding to see a driver’s license? No. The second they start doing that, and end up arresting bona fide American citizens, they’ve got a legal and political problem of Titanic proportions on their hands.

Of course I could be wrong. We all know Republicans hate minorities, so maybe they do intend to use this to round up brown people, or whatever. My suspicion, though, is that this won’t have much of a practical effect, a view echoed by the executive director of the Arizona Police Association (a bill supporter). I think it is more of a shot across the bow of the federal government, a message that says if you don’t start getting serious about actually enforcing the border, we states are going to take the matter into our own hands. Already we’ve seen Arizona pols defend it in those terms, putting further pressure on the feds to actually do something about it. According to at least one poll, 70% or Arizonans support the measure. There’s some obvious frustration reflected in those numbers, and perhaps in these on the national level, too. I think the GOP is likely to use this to demand actual border enforcement in whatever amnesty crap Congress is preparing.

Out of curiosity, can anyone guess which Tea Party crazy is once again invoking Nazi Germany to attack legislation they don’t like? Oh, did I say Tea Party crazy? I meant Colorado Democrat. Just a friendly reminder that Democrats are as familiar with Godwin’s law as some on the Right, dontcha know. Maybe he knows the folks who smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on windows at the AZ state capitol? (By the way, check out the headline in the very last link, from WaPo. Media bias, FTW!!!)

Ed. note- Darn, wouldn’t you know they’d change the headline? It used to read: “Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants”. Good of them to change it to reflect reality.

A comment on HburgNews.com, by the illustrious Jeremy Aldrich (quick aside- not digging the new layout…too “busy”):

Interesting point on non-whites at the local rally – with one notable exception, the only non-whites I saw were high school kids there to get extra credit for government class.

OMG! Fascinating point, indeed. You know what’s even more interesting, though? That, in 2010, we still have those who take a look at a crowd and see not just human beings, but white people and black people and brown people. As if it’s important at all one way or another. Why the instant need to look at someone and put them in various interest groups?

Of course, it doesn’t matter to some whether or not “non-whites” (notice the PC-ness of it all, too?) are at a Tea Party rally anyway, for conservative blacks are just dismissed as putting on a “minstrel show” for their white masters, or something. Or, in Jeremy’s case, just students getting extra credit. Instead of celebrating the diversity that is there, liberals like these tools wield it as a weapon against the Right. There will never be enough blacks at a conservative or Republican gathering, and those that are there will always be minimized and mocked. Anything to perpetuate the tea-party-rally-is-just-a-Klan-rally meme, I guess.

It’s often asked when this country will move beyond race, when the color of one’s skin won’t matter. You want to know the answer? Go ask Jeremy Aldrich. Because, unless and until the bean counting ends, we never will.

I’m seeing a lot of discussion regarding the upcoming Republican primary for the now-vacant 26th district House of Delegates seat. I don’t care who wins; it doesn’t matter to me one way or another. Not only that, but state legislative races don’t interest me much anyway. Small potatoes compared to what is going on nationally.

With that said, though, I find it curious that some Democrats are talking about participating in the GOP primary, and in certain cases are being encouraged to do so. Yes, I know that Virginia has an open primary system (unfortunately). But, this primary is for Republicans to decide who their candidate will be for the special election. Democrats will be able to choose theirs, as well, if they haven’t already. Though I’ve certainly hoped that certain Democrats would’ve been nominated over others, I’ve never had any interest or desire to meddle in their primaries and seek to influence who won. I’ve always felt Democrats should choose who their own nominee will be, and obviously the same should hold true for Republicans.

And what about the argument that the GOP primary is essentially the de facto special election, since whomever the nominee ends up being will be heavily favored? Hogwash. If anyone feels that way I’m not sure why they bother voting at all; you’re certainly doing your own nominee no favors with such an attitude. Regardless, though, it doesn’t change the basic underlying principle that it is Republicans who should choose their nominee, and vice versa. Everyone will have a say during the special election, and the chips will fall where they may.