As of right now the vote on healthcare reform is scheduled to take place sometime later on today but that seems like it could be in jeopardy as Democrats still do not have the votes. The vote may be pushed back to tomorrow or maybe even next week. Steny Hoyer claims they are close to having the votes but they are just not there yet.

  Usually leadership waits until they know the votes are there for legislation before they bring it up for a vote to avoid this exact type of embarrassment. But Nancy Pelosi scheduled the vote before she could pass the legislation and I can think of only one reason.

  She announced the Saturday vote last Wednesday, the day after Republicans swept the Virginia races and took the New Jersey governorship. While claiming that she thought the election of these Republicans was a Democrat victory she announced the healthcare reform vote. She did this in a defiant manner, she was trying to take the headlines away from the Republican victories. She almost seems to have done it in spite. “Oh yeah you stupid Virginians and New Jerseyans(ites?), I will show you who is boss!” That was the message that Nancy Pelosi seemed to be trying to send. She was angry at the Republican gains and scheduled the vote in a moment in which she was not thinking clearly.

  And now she doesn’t have the votes. Nancy Pelosi was so concerned about grabbing the headlines away from the Republicans that she rashly scheduled this vote hoping that between last Wednesday and today she would be able to threaten Democrat legislators and twist enough arms before the bill came up for a vote. She has not been able to do this and now may face the embarrassment of having to push the vote back into next week.

  Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat leadership have been trying to force this legislation down our throats, in doing so they are not always thinking clearly and this was just one such example.

  According to this press release by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Americans who refuse to buy and maintain ”adequate” healthcare insurance will face fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years.

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

  This is America?

The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration.  Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates

  There is nothing more that needs to be said

  Kimberly Munley is a 34 year old mother of a three year old girl and a civilian police officer who was performing her duty directing traffic at Fort Hood when she heard shots ring out on November 6th.

  She rushed toward the commotion with a disregard for her own well being and engaged Nidal Malik Hasan who had begun firing on American soldiers on the base. A firefight ensued and even after Hasan managed to put a bullet through both of her legs and one in her wrist she fired four shots into Hasan and single-handedly brought him down– ending the terror spree.

  Kimberly Munley is a true American heroine, if it was not for her quick thinking and quick response this dreadful attack could have been much, much worse. Even in attacks as heinous as this one we sometimes see great acts of courage. This was one such time.

  While Hasan was cowardly killing a pregnant woman and shooting soldiers in the back, Kimberly Munley stood face to face with him and took him down.

  Kimberly Munley is in the hospital recovering and she is in stable condition. While nothing can ever be said that will comfort those who lost loved ones at the hands of  Hasan, Americans should take comfort in the fact that we have people like Kimberly Munley on our side.

  Our thoughts go out to Kimberly today, rest easy and get well soon.

  Check out this article for more on Kimberly Munley.

  Does anybody else find it curious that nobody seems to be willing to use the “T” word when reporting or talking about the Fort Hood massacre? I certainly do.

   Here we have Nidal Malik Hasan, who opposes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, who opposes the United States policies in the Middle East, who was spouting dangerous and threatening language toward the United States, who had a blog in which he extolled the virtues of suicide bombers and called for Muslims to rise up to fight off the aggressors, and who went into the part of the facility that treats soldiers who are either being deployed to or are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to begin his terror spree.  I think that is is safe to say that he targeted soldiers who were involved or going to be involved in the war. And let us not forget that as he was killing American heroes he was shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

  If this was not an act of terrorism I don’t know what is anymore. Yet during the shooting spree the media reported that the FBI did not suspect terrorism. At that point it was unknown what the motives for the killings was, but certainly the FBI should have considered terrorism as at least a possibility. Hell, the latest reports claim that the FBI had been watching Hasan for six months. They had to have had some suspicions.

  So the question is– why is no one willing to use the word “terrorism” when discussing, investigating, or reporting on this issue? Is the FBI trying to cover up the fact that they knew Hasan was dangerous and did not act in time to save these heroes? Or has there been a gag order issued by the administration? Has the administration decided that the word “terrorism” can not be used? We know that there is a move afoot in Homeland Security to rename terrorist activities “man-caused disasters,” so is this an attempt bu the administration to be politically correct so as to not offend peaceful Muslims?

  The media keeps asking the question, “what motivated this man to commit such a heinous act?” And the answer that they keep coming up with is that he suffered from stress from dealing with the stress of soldiers who have returned from battle. They are painting this killer as the victim, they are trying to make mim a sympathetic figure. I can tell you what motivated him, he is a terrorist.

  He was acting alone, there was no al Qaeda plot, but does that make this any less of a terrorist act? I don’t think so.

  I understand that now that Barack Obama is president the threat of terrorism is supposed to be gone. We are supposed to live in a world of hearts and flowers, sitting by the campfire singing Kumbaya, but that is not the reality. The reality is that there are still people out there who want to do America and Americans harm and this is proof.

  It will be interesting to see how the investigation and prosecution of Hasan goes. Surely the president wants to downplay the fact that a terrorist attack happened on American soil on his watch, and perhaps the FBI was handcuffed in their investigation of Hasan before the deadly rampage by the administration for politically correct motives. One thing is certain, Hasan will be tried in civilian court for murder and not for committing a terrorist act, but that does not diminish the fact that Hasan is a terrorist and should be tried and hanged as one.

  If we have come to the point in America where we have to pussyfoot around the notion of terrorism, if we have come to the point in America where we can no longer call a terrorist act what it is, we have already lost.

  The political fallout from Tuesday’s election is continuing.

  As can be seen in this article there are many Democrats who are more than just a little nervous after last Tuesday’s election. While the White House is claiming that these elections were in no way a referendum on Obama’s presidency the election showed a real discontent growing in the American people and Democrats, mainly those in traditionally red states, are worried about voting on controversial White House agenda issues, like healthcare reform.

  So these elections may in fact put a crimp in Obama’s agenda. Many Democrats are already beginning to rethink their positions, they know that the public is angry and ready to pounce. While there is no guarantee that the momentum gained last Tuesday will be carried all the way into the 2010 elections, there are certainly some Democrats who fear that it is possible.

  In my original post on the election I hesitated to call the Virginia and New Jersey victories a repudiation or referendum of Barack Obama but if these Democrats are now rethinking their positions on the issues perhaps it was a referendum on Barack Obama after all.

  With the vote on the healthcare reform bill set for sometime Saturday, pro-life Democrats led by Representative Bart Stupak are still vowing to kill this bill.

  Rep. Stupak is leading a coalition of 40+ Democrats who promise to vote against the healthcare reform bill if Nancy Pelosi does not allow a vote on language that Stupak wants added to the bill to ensure that taxpayer funded abortions will not be part of the legislation. Nancy Pelosi has refused to give in and these Democrats are still holding firm in their position that they will vote against healthcare reform.

  This pro-life coalition of Democrats is our best hope that the healthcare reform bill will be stopped. So far they are talking a great game, I just hope that when the time comes for action their votes match their talk. Heavy pressure is going to be applied to them to change their vote and fall in line with the leadership. This pressure is guarenteed to increase as the vote grows closer.

  If these Democrat truly hold pro-life views– and I think that they do– they will not succumb to party pressure, they will follow their consciences even at the risk of losing monetary support from the DNC. It will be very interesting to see how these Democrats vote. We will be watching.

  We have been told over and over again that there is nothing in the healthcare reform bill that would use taxpayer money to fund abortions. The Hyde amendment has been sited as proof that there will be no federally funded abortion but the Hyde amendment is attached to the appropriations portion of the bill and not to the main bill itself. This sets up a loophole that would possibly allow the government to create new agencies that would be able to use federal money to provide for abortion. And let us not forget that because the Hyde amendment is attached to the appropriations portion of the bill that it will have to be renewed every year.

  Representative Stupak has been fighting to get language added to the bill that would close any potential loophole and eliminate any chance that federal money would be used to provide for abortions. It would seem to me that if there was no potential loophole and the bill did not provide federal money for abortion that Nancy Pelosi would have no problem adding Stupak’s language, it would just be redundant language. But she has refused to do so and now we may know why.

  According to this release the House version of the bill mandates that at least one government run plan will be mandated to cover abortions. If the plan is government run that means the money to run the program comes from taxpayers, we will be funding abortions.

  But it doesn’t stop there. The healthcare reform bill also mandates that every person who is enrolled in the public option will be charged a monthly abortion premium. This premium will be used to provide abortions.

  We are being lied to by Nancy Pelosi, there will be federally funded abortions in this bill.

   When asked where the constitution provided the authority to mandate the American people to buy healthcare insurance this is what Roland Burris had to say:

Well, that’s under certainly the laws of the–protect the health, welfare of the country,” said Burris. “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country

  There is just one little problem with his statement– the constitution does not say anywhere that the government is to provide for the “health” of the United States. He either made that up or he does not know what the constitution actually says.  Which one of those scenarios is worse? I guess that he was trying to invoke the “general welfare” clause. This man is a United States senator– granted he bought his seat– and he does not even know what is in the constitution. One has to wonder if he has even bothered to read it.

   Roland Burris showed perhaps a greater  amount of ignorance toward the United States constitution than any other sitting politician in congress when he claimed that the constitution says that the government provides for “health” of the American people. These people will stop at nothing in order to find the authority to force the American people to buy health insurance, even making up something that is not there.

    I would like to say that my thoughts are with all of the families who lost loved ones at Fort Hood today, as are the thoughts and prayers of all Americans.

  I have been listening to the coverage since I found out about this tragedy and it is heartbreaking. I am still astonished and upset that this could happen on a base in the United States.

  I am equally astonished at the president of the United States.

  On my way home from work today I listened live to the press conference that President Obama held about the Fort Hood shootings and my first reaction was that I thought he didn’t know about the shootings.

  Before he bothered to mention the shooting he gave a “shout out.”  In light of the grave events I found this to be in incredibly bad taste, in fact I was disgusted by it. President Obama showed more than just a serious lack of judgement, he showed a lack of any sense of dignity and caring for the families who have just lost their loved ones.

  Jordan Westgate is a senior at Merrimack Valley High in New Hampshire. He submitted his senior photo for the yearbook only to be told by the principal that he could not use the picture because it violated school policy. What was Jordan’s violation? He is joining the army upon graduation, he passed basic training last Summer, and the picture that he submitted was him standing in front of the flag, in uniform wearing his army combat hat.

  According to school policy a student is not permitted to wear a hat or use a prop. He wants an exception to be made, claiming that his picture is more respectful than many of the other pictures students have used.

  The school policy has been in place for four years and they are unwilling to make this exception for this fine young man. However, in 2007 the school did make an exception for one student. A Muslim woman was allowed to wear her scarf over her face. Here is what the principal had to say about the exception:

I think there’s a difference with religion,” Jette said. “If a Jewish student came here and said he had to wear a yarmulke (for the portrait photograph), we’d have to look at that

  In today’s age where there has been a “separation of church and state” read into the constitution that does not exist it would seem to me that the religious symbols should be considered more offensive to the principal than the picture of a man wearing his military uniform. Notice the principal example of the yarmulke? I wonder if a student asked to have his picture taken with a crucifix or a rosary would be accepted. But that is a topic for another day.

  It seems to me that the principal is making a political statement with his refusal to allow Jordan to use his military photo. Jordon comes from a military family with a proud military history and he should be allowed to show his pride with his picture.