One thing that isn't mentioned in the aftermath of Hillary's stunning come from behind victory is the help that Limbaugh and the conservative radio hosts gave her.  There was a lot of talk about their wanning popularity and influence after they failed to derail John McCain's bid to become the Republican nominee.  However, I think this is an incident where Rush and his gang can proudly declare that they are once again relevant and influential.  All they had to do was start campaigning for Hillary and they gained that credibility they had lost over the past two decades.

This is a puzzling dilemma because they are supposed to be anti-Hillary if they are anything.  Hillary has once again 'regained her voice' and so has talk radio.  Does Rush now jump on her bandwagon because that is where most of his influence can be felt?

After Mary Katherine Hamm's vote for the Shrill, I wonder how many of the votes for Hillary were from Republicans who knew that McCain was going to be the nominee.  I personally believe that Hillary would be more difficult to defeat than Obama because of her connections to the Washington inside.  But it is good to see them have to spend another tens of millions of dollars on this campaign.  The TV stations of the remaining contests have to be salivating over these prospects.  In normal years, by March, we are already yawning about anything primary related.  Not this year.

This year we know that Hillary will take her campaign all the way to the convention and then try to get Obama to run on the bottom of her ticket.  Hillary won't go away easily and that is what makes her such a difficult politician to beat.  There is no way that Hillary gets out of this race until the convention no matter how the voting goes.  And if I was Obama, there would be no way I would have her on the presidential ticket either with the baggage that she brings.  No, Hillary knows that her only chance is to be close enough to manipulate the super delegates to her side for the convention.

In any event, the conservative talk radio should be in fine shape.  Rush basically launched his career because of Bill Clinton.  If Hillary were to become president, I'm certain that Rush's popularity would skyrocket.  Heck he may even get some of the View audience.  So the remaining question is. . . is Rush REALLY conservative?  He claims McCain is not.  But for the ratings, Rush is voting for Hillary right now.  Politics really do make for strange bedfellows.

The health care debate has come down to whether or not the government should pay for everyone's health insurance.  While it seems to be a noble cause and idea, it neglects to recognize the fact that health insurance is different than health care.  Health insurance is an important aspect of the cost of the health care puzzle.  But the problem with health care is the rising cost of health care.  Merely providing health insurance by paying for it with taxpayer money does not do anything to solve the problem of the rising cost of health care.

Health insurance is an important aspect of the cost of health care because it is the vehicle within which health care prices are negotiated.  Without such negotiations, people would find themselves in a position of negotiating price of a life saving medical procedure only after they were certain that they needed it.  The health insurance apparatus enables the negotiation of the cost of medical procedures apart from the pressures of actually needing the procedure done.  In other words, if you need heart surgery to save your life, it is worth everything you have or will have to get the surgery done.  But if the prices have already been negotiated by the insurance companies, your cost will be much less to have the life saving surgery.  Without health insurance, it might be common to pay $50 for an aspirin because there would not be a check on the doctors' prices.

Having said that, I understand that there is a relationship between the cost of health care and the number of people with health insurance.  This is because the doctors and hospitals still provide services to people who don't have insurance (that's true, it is against the law to deny someone life saving medical treatment - even illegal aliens).  As a result of these services that are provided for free, the hospitals and doctors negotiate rates with insurance companies to offset the costs of treating those who can not pay.  So essentially the people with insurance are already paying for the care of the people without insurance anyway.  With this understanding, people say that if everybody had health insurance, the cost of health care would be less because it would be evenly distributed.  But these costs are already in the system during the negotiations between health care providers and insurance companies.

Paying for health insurance for all Americans will likely cause the cost of health care to continue to rise.  People will use the services more because they will consider them to be free.  Any time you give something away for free utilization goes up.  So we will need much more capacity to service everyone who has free health insurance which enables them to get free health care.  We will need twice as many doctors, hospitals, emergency rooms, etc. in order to care for everyone equally for free.  The availability of doctors and hospitals is one problem in much smaller countries who have universal health care.  The waiting list to see the doctors in those countries is oppressively long so quality of care decreases.

The current debate is over whether or not the government should pay more for health insurance for children.  The debate has soured into the idea that President Bush's veto denies health care to needy and sick children.  This is far from the truth.  The veto merely prevents the government (your and my tax dollars) from paying for their health insurance.  All of these children can get health care at clinics provided by state governments.  Many of these children already have health insurance on their own.  Most of the money that the Congress is going to use to pay for this 35 billion dollar program is going to come from the poor and middle class who have children on the current SCHIP program.  This is a bad idea because it does nothing to address the issue of the cost of health care.  The only point of this program is to pay for health insurance for these children regardless of lifestyle choices that might make them less healthy such as over eating.

Many people think that the solution to universal health care is Medicare for everyone.  That sounds great because Medicare is a very good program provided by the government.  I wish I could qualify for Medicare because I would have much better coverage than I do now at a lower cost.  However what people don't realize is that the government can not sustain the current Medicare program.  It costs too much.  Also, many doctors and hospitals are charging private insurance companies more to offset the cost of treating Medicare patients much like they do for patients who don't pay.  The Medicare reimbursement rates are much lower than private health insurance companies pay.  Also there are new Medicare Advantage programs where the government is paying insurance companies to get people to opt out of their Medicare coverage and into private coverage that is equivalent or better than Medicare benefits.

The cost of health care is a problem in this country.  Providing health insurance to everyone through tax dollars is no solution to the rising cost of health care.  There are simple solutions that would be difficult to pass.  But they would address the problems instead of merely providing government handouts that pass the buck to future generations.  Three solutions would be prescription drug cost reforms, medical malpractice lawsuit reform, and a non-profit model for health insurance companies.  These solutions would fall far short of the call for the government paying for everyone's health insurance.  But these solutions would actually do something to address the problem rather than postpone the problems for future generations.  These solutions would likely cut the cost of health care in half in this country.  My message to the congress on these 'government provided health insurance for all' debates would be 'It's the COST of health care, stupid'.

Recently the House of Representatives and Senate passed a bill about the federally funded children's health care program SCHIP.  This program was designed to pay for health care of people who make too much money to qualify for medicare, but 'not enough' to pay for health insurance themselves.  The President is going to veto this bill because it will tax the poor and give to the rich.  Since the Democrats knew the President was going to veto this bill, over the weekend, they had a 12 year old sick boy deliver their radio address to the nation.  I thought that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were the only organizations who actively hid behind children for propaganda purposes.  Apparently the Democrats think using kids for propaganda is a good idea too (recall the child of the illegal alien paraded around recently).

Since Congress now follows 'paygo' rules, they have to figure out how they are going to pay for legislation before they can pass anything.  Generally you would think that they would look at cutting some of the fat that would have to be in the budget for less important programs in order to afford something important.  The Democrats would likely think that the military would be the best place to cut funds (as Clinton did and will if she is elected president).  However Congress chose the age old boogie man of 'Big Tobacco' to foot the bill for this new program.  Congress will include a 61 cent per pack of cigarettes federal tax to pay for this bill.  I assume they figure that nobody will complain if it is a tax on evil awful bad tobacco.

However this idea misses the point.  It isn't the 'Big Tobacco' companies that are going to pay for this program.  It is the people who tend to smoke more than others.  The people who smoke more than others would be the poor and middle class working American.  This tax does not discriminate based on how much money you make.  Even if you don't make enough money to pay any federal income tax, this tax will cost you.  Generally the well off Americans don't smoke so they won't feel a tax increase at all here.  If someone is a pack-a-day smoker, this tax will cost them $222.65 per year more no matter how much money they make.

Some people might argue that it might be incentive for them to quit smoking so their health would be better.  I appreciate good intentions better than anyone, but do we really need the government coercing us through taxes like this?  It is as though the government thinks the jizya system (in Muslim sharia law where non-muslims have to pay extra taxes to show themselves 'subdued') is a good idea for certain parts of society.  Another flaw in the argument of 'well if they quit then they won't cost as much for health care' is that once people begin to quit, the 'paygo' model breaks down.  Then they'll have to find the money somewhere else.  Once they successfully make everyone quit smoking, who will be paying the 61 cent tax to provide the benefits for this 35 billion dollar program (government entitlement from tax dollars)?

If we are going down this road to where congress taxes things which are deemed harmful to the personal health of Americans, we can expect to see taxes on motorcycle riding, sky diving, doughnuts, fried food, candy, fat people and many other things that people do which are bad for the health.  Another harmful American activity that is just as destructive health wise as smoking is homosexual activity.  Being homosexual has as high a risk of obtaining AIDS as smoking has a risk of obtaining lung cancer.  So I guess we'll see the day when congress imposes a 'gay tax' to pay for the health care of people who already have health insurance.  I'm not holding my breath for that tax.

If you take the 12 year old sick boy out of the argument FOR this bill, it begins to unravel when you study it.

The portion of the bill that the President opposes is the increase in this bill.  President Bush does not want to get rid of this program for kids who NEED it.  He wants to sign the extension of the current program.  This new addition to the program that congress wants to pay for with a tobacco tax will include people who make up to 80,000 dollars a year in income and already have health insurance.  This new bill will not work to cover people who are uninsured because they can't afford it.  It will cover people who can afford it, but no longer will have to because the smokers will pay for their health care.

The Republican leadership needs to find a family currently on the SCHIP program with a mother and father who smokes a pack a day ($222.65 x 2 = $445.30/year).  I can imagine they have one child on the SCHIP program because they can't afford health insurance (though they can afford cigarettes).  Then the Republicans need to bring out a non-smoking family who have insurance already and explain to the country that the family already on the program will pay for the insurance for the family that does not need the coverage BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS.

People downplayed the Bush tax cut a few years ago because it 'only' returned a maximum of $300 to every American citizen.  The Democrats want to repeal that and capital gains tax cuts as well.  However, they don't see any problem with raising taxes on this family who needs the SCHIP program by $445.30/year to pay for the health care of someone who does not need coverage.  It won't help to get the uninsured covered.  I bet people who have to pay this tax will think this tax increase is large.  It is especially large on those people who are poor and middle class America.

This congress is working as hard as they can to take as much of your money as they can.  I hope we can find someone in congress willing to explain to their colleagues that tax money is not THEIR money.  Tax money is OUR money.  The more tax money that congress takes, the more tax money congress will waste.  Federal taxes are supposed to pay for important things that the capitalistic economy can't take care of (ESPECIALLY DEFENSE - unless they want lots of independent militias in the country contracted out for wealthy people).

This program does nothing to address the COST of health care (which is the problem).  This program merely throws more money at the problem and makes the government's role bigger.  This 'tax and spend' mentality is problematic.  And the use of sick children to promote it is abominable.

I was at the post office today, which is at our airport, coming back to the office when I looked up and saw a huge plane that had just taken off from Greensboro a minute ago.  It was big enough for me to notice that it was a plane I would like to identify.  It looked big enough to be a 747, but was it?  Not many 747's use this airport.  A longer look and sure enough the nose did look bigger than the rest of the plane.  I thought I could make out 4 engines on the wings.  But the colors were too far away to make out.  It seemed like there was some blue shimmering on the nose.  Just like AIR FORCE ONE!
 

My heart skipped, 'no way', I thought.  The President isn't in town because there would be police everywhere if it really was Air Force One.  There is one other 747 for the cargo company Tradewinds Cargo that is usually at the airport.  Maybe it was that 747.  Maybe Fedex was flying in to test out the equipment at the new hub.  I know from working with Fedex in grad school that most of their planes are 737's, with a few DC10 and DC9's, and a couple of 727's.  Maybe they had a new 747, but I would know the colors of a Fedex plane from that distance.

 
Surely I thought it was the 747 of the Cargo company.  But I just had to see it.  It was still in the landing pattern so I knew it was going to come back around.  If it was Air Force One, that would be cool, but it would still be cool to see such a gigantic aircraft fly.

 
So I drove to the market street runway and parked.  I saw it in the pattern so it was going to be coming to land any minute.  First a small single engine piper landed (yawn), then a commuter came in to land (nope, not what I'm looking for).  A jet took off between those to aircraft to give you some idea of how long I waited. . . .

and waited. . .

and waited. . . .

I had to get to work and there was no sign of this monstrous plane I had seen.  Had it left the pattern?  Was it going to another airport?  Should I go on with my day?  After all, it's just a plane. . .

 But then, ALL OF A SUDDEN, just above the tree tops, in all its physics defying majesty!  Right above my head there it was!  The bastion of freedom around the world!  The harbinger of justice to those mistreated!  The torch of Liberty from sea to shining sea!  The pin ultimate icon of Capitalism world wide! as plain as the nose on my face! AIR FORCE ONE 747 set to land at full throttle for the go around with the blue and spangled wording 'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"!

Oh, I could not believe it.  I saw it from an angle few will.  For surely had the President been on the plane, I would not have been able to get that close!  It didn't land.  It flew right over the Runway on a 'touch and go' but never actually put its wheels on the ground.  My lunch break I got a fly by of AIR FORCE ONE!  Imagine the countries and places that plane has seen.  I know there is more than one air force one, and it is only air force one when the President is on it technically.  But wow!

This was better than the f-15 flyby at the Wake Forest homecoming two weeks ago.  But that F-15 fly over was THE BOMB because the f-15 is my favorite plane and they were so low and so fast and it was REALLY AWESOME!  But this was even BETTER! 

That plane is calling me.  It's the only reason I would want to be President.  But it might be enough of a reason to get me to seriously consider straightening up my act and letting my ideas benefit the world.  I don't know if I want to be President.  But that plane and all it symbolizes and represents is something I definitely want.

I had to share that experience with someone because I was by myself, but it was awesome!

Our soldiers are the bravest and most well equipped fighting men and women in the world.  It is a shame that one single tactic is responsible for most of the success of our enemies in Iraq and we failed to counter it.  Our troops are in Iraq fighting hard.  Many are getting killed.  Our soldiers are not getting killed by air power because of our air superiority.  Our soldiers are not getting killed by tanks because the enemy doesn't have any.  Most of our soldiers have been killed with IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices).  Basically these things are glorified pipe bombs.  They are placed on the road and wait until our Humvee patrol drives by before they detonate it.  This was the chink in the mighty American military machine and the insurgents exploited it at the price of our men and women.  MRAP's would have and will save the majority of the deaths and injuries that our soldiers are suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our soldiers knew this right away as they began putting make-shift armor of scrap metal on their Humvees before going on patrol.  They knew that Americas weakness was in the patrol vehicle.  Donald Rumsfeld failed the troops when he uttered his famous phrase at the press conference 'You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have'.  There could not be a more obvious expression of the people in charge not understanding what their job is.  I would bet that Rumsfeld would not have gone on patrol in those ill equipped death traps like he asked our brave men and women to.

Our troops did not need more bullets, nor tanks, nor aircraft.  Rumsfeld offered up plenty of those hugely expensive pieces of military hardware.  They needed MRAP's.  These vehicles offer the protection that our soldiers need to do the job that they are doing.  These vehicles withstand IED explosions to save the lives and limbs of our troops.  The pentagon has about 1500 scheduled to be in combat by the start of 2008, and they have ordered another 20,000 of them.  This should be priority number ONE.

During WWII all of our production capacity went into building tanks and planes.  A result of that production is that we won the war.  Thus far, we have basically 'gone to war with the army we had.'  None of our soldiers should have gone on patrol in vehicles that could not withstand the only threat that the insurgents posed to our troops.  These vehicles should have been ordered immediately after our first soldier was killed.  Many battles in history were not waged because the generals determined that they did not have the proper resources to fight without losing our soldiers.

When the enemy has success against us such as this, it emboldens them and makes them want to fight more.  If our troops had these MRAP's earlier, the war would be over because the insurgents would not have any way to fight successfully against us.  Back home the anti-war effort gains traction each and every time one of these roadside bombs does what it is intended to do and kills one of our men.  If the soldiers had these vehicles, Rumsfeld would likely still have his job because loss of life would have been so minimal you would not be able to be against this operation to spread freedom.  These vehicles would likely have kept the enemy at bay so that the war could be ended and our troops could come home.

When the enemy does not have success, they stop fighting.  We are not trying to fight against anyone as much as trying to keep others from fighting us at this point.  Once the enemy stops fighting, the war will be over and all of our troops can come home.  At that point we can all rest assured that not one more of our soldiers will die on the sands of Iraq.

Please urge Congress to pay for these vehicles that the troops need.  With these vehicles, America wins.  Without these vehicles Iraq 'becomes another Vietnam'.  Success for our troops can be had, but they must be given the equipment that they need to do the job right.  I hope that this lesson is learned by all future leaders as we possibly fight more wars.  Our soldiers should never be placed in a situation that their lives are in danger simply because they don't have the equipment (that is available) that they need.  We owe that to our soldiers.

It is disgusting that America has to allow the Iranian president into our country without being arrested while he is orchestrating the murder of our men and women in uniform.  This should be the final straw in the debate over whether or not the USA should host the UN.  Many people say that this will allow him to see what freedom means.  Many people say that this is what freedom of speech is all about.  Many 'Americans' agree with him when he says that America is the cause of the problems of the world.  The problem is that Constitutional rights of freedom of speech only apply to American citizens.  As such Mahmoud's speech means much more to his culture and country than it does to our country.

People might say that he has every 'right' to come to our country and speak.  No he does not because he is not an American citizen.  He will only come here and tell everyone what they want to hear while lying about things he thinks might be considered offensive.  He will use this as a platform to spew his propaganda, not free speech, about how American soldiers are jumping in the way of Iranian bombs and bullets.  He will say, 'If the American soldiers were not there, then the Iranian bombs and bullets would not be able to hit them and so it is America's fault that they are being hit with Iranian weaponry by Iranian soldiers.'

America is not the problem, America is the solution.  The problem with the Iranian president coming to speak here has less to do with our culture as it does with his culture.  In our culture we will use it as another sign of proof of our willingness to allow freedom for even those we disagree with.  In Iranian culture and any enemy's culture they will see it as a sign that America is a paper tiger.  The whole world knows that Iran is fighting against the Americans in Iraq.  The whole world knows that Iran fought against Israel through Hezbollah.  The world can not believe that America will allow a man who is actively at war against it's brave soldiers to come to the country with the red carpet treatment.

I personally can't believe it either.  There are many in America who believe we should negotiate with this criminal who participated in the hostage crisis of 1979.  The only negotiation that we should allow between the two countries is for him to stop shooting at our soldiers who are not in his country.  The only negotiation we should have with Iran is a formal declaration of war against a country that is actively fighting a war against us.

This visit by the Iranian president shows that America is weak.  Nobody knows this more than this tyrant who has called for the destruction of another country and death to America (known to him as the 'great satan').  This man will use our freedoms against us to emphasize the fact that he is winning on the battlefield because we can't fight back, as well as in the political realm because we allow him to tell us his side of the story when he won't care about our side of the story.

America needs to allow some other country to host the UN for a few decades.  We should not be forced to grant our Constitutional rights to someone who is doing everything he can to kill those fighting for us to maintain our Constitutional rights.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have Constitutional rights and we should not allow him to exercise them for his own propaganda.

We see polls all of the time that declare one candidate leading another candidate, or one point of view more popular than another point of view.  Most of these polls seem meaningless to me other than giving the media something to talk about.  One poll that I recently saw said that 55% of Americans wanted our troops home.  There were no other qualifiers other than 'they wanted our troops home'.  Obviously the pollsters (and the media) were trying to point out that a majority of Americans disapprove of the war that our troops are fighting and we should bring them home at all costs.  However that is not how the poll read.

I am one who supports the war effort and appreciates every last one of our brave men and women who choose to fight for my freedom every day.  We can never do enough to thank them because each and every one of them choose to put their lives on the line as a duty for their country.  But even supporters of the war want every single one of these fine Americans to come home safe and sound.  Every American mourns the loss of every soldier on the field of battle.  I wish there was something more that I could do as an American to protect each soldier from harm.

However I know that there is a job that needs to be done.  Once that job is done, all the troops can come home to ticker tape parades and the gratitude of everyone in America.  Once our enemies decide that it is better for them to stop fighting than continue to lose the war of attrition because our military can not be defeated, then we can come home victorious.  If America leaves the theater of battle before the job is done, the fight will be much more difficult for those future brave soldiers who choose honor and duty for country over some desk job back home. 

The soldiers know that we are winning.  The soldiers want the politicians in Congress to know that we are winning.  Are soldiers dying?  Yes they are.  Is that a horrible fact of war for a warrior's chosen profession?  Yes it is.  But the fact that the enemy is still firing back at us means that there is work left to do.  Our soldiers are still in Germany and Japan, but we are not getting fired upon.  We left those wars victorious as we will do in the middle east.  Our soldiers are up to the task.  Our tax dollars are supposed to go to support America's finest in the theater of war.  Our battles are supposed to be fought to be won.  100% of our troops should come home safe and sound to their mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and neighbors.  We all want all of our troops home.  But we all, especially our troops, know that there is a job to do.  And as long as that job remains undone, our military is more than up to the task to do it.

America is a great country in no small part because of our military.  The world is a safe place in no small part to the American military.  America is not without its faults, but the world is a much better and safer place with America playing an active role in global politics.  The world is a better place with a strong and united America behind its armed forces.  All of our troops will come home when the job is completed - until another job needs to be done and our military men and women will be eager to take up that task again for duty, for honor.  God bless America and please keep all of our troops safe from those that wish to harm them.  Let them know that 100% of Americans want 100% of them home safe and sound victorious.

For my first post on the anniversary of 9/11 I would like to ask the question, 'who would the most wanted man on earth vote for for the President of the United States of America?'  I assume that he is interested in politics because of his latest video release for the first time in 3 years.

All this talk about illegal aliens in this country and what to do with them gets me thinking about who these people might vote for and why.  Since we don't know where Osama Bin Laden is, and we don't know who 12 million people are in this country, it is possible that Osama is one of the illegals right here in America hoping for amnesty and citizenship.  Once these illegals become citizens, they would get to vote just like any other American.  Without questioning any politician's patriotism I question who public enemy #1 would side with.

Likely Osama would side with the Democrats on most issues because his goals seem to parallel theirs.  He wants American troops out of Iraq like all of the Democratic presidential candidates.  He claims victory in Iraq just as Harry Reid says we have lost the war in Iraq, and Chuck Schumer declares that the American military is INCAPABLE of providing security from the mighty mighty Al Qaeda in Iraq.  And like Cindy Sheehan, he claims dismay at the inability of the Democratic leadership to force the American withdrawal from Iraq.

Now that we have narrowed down the party affiliation, lets look at the individual candidates.  Edwards probably would not be one of Bin Laden's favorites mainly because he would not want to pay so much in taxes out of his vast personal wealth.  All Democrats claim they will raise taxes, but none as enthusiastically as Edwards.   Plus Edwards voted for the Iraq war in the first place to become one of the 'crusaders' he despises.

Osama would probably vote for Obama in the primaries because of his grade school education in the madrassa.  As a devout Muslim, he would think that once a Muslim always a Muslim.  So he would like the idea of a Muslim in the White House as a victory against the west.  It would fulfill his dream of converting the leadership of the most powerful nation on the planet into a Muslim leadership.  To him and many Muslims and Obama presidency would be proof of the 'greatness' of Islam to conquer the greatest nation without firing a shot.  However, Obama's recent statement that he would go after Osama's friends in Pakistan probably sour the final decision against Obama.  While Obama just stated the current US policy with regards to Pakistan, he had never heard it spoken so forcefully.

And that leads us to the front runner, Hillary.  Osama would vote for Hillary because of his personal view of women as the inferior sex.  A woman as leader to him would show weakness.  Also, he would like another Clinton who, when Bin Laden is offered up for capture, might again decline.  Most of the 9/11 planning took place during the Clinton administration.  Also, the Clintons made sure to slash the military budget and close the military bases to make the military smaller.  A smaller military means that the US can not fight the wars with the manpower and resources that we might need.  A Clinton presidency would allow the American military to be weakened within.  Finally Bin Laden would like a Clinton presidency for free health insurance to cover whatever ailments he currently obviously has.  He could get the Great Satan to pay for his recuperation as he plots his next attack.

It is amazing that hearing Bin Laden speak is like listening to Democratic talking points.  Democrats always say that dissent is patriotic.  Osama Bin Laden dissents more than anyone, but I doubt anyone thinks he's much of an American patriot.  Thank you for reading.