National Treasure is a fun movie. There is no fancy plot to get in the wayof a good story. It starts with a young Ben Gates learning that hisancestor was entrusted with a clue to discover the whereabouts of a vastsum of wealth collected since antiquity was hidden by the founding fathersso the British wouldn't get a hold of the treasure.

Needless to say the Gates family has been searching for it ever since. Thistime Ben Bates, played by Nicholas Cage, joins with a multi-millionaire IanHowe, played by Sean Bean, to hunt for the treasure. Together they find thelocation of the first clue only to find no treasure. Instead they findanother clue that leads to the back of the Declaration of Independence. Ben backs out when he learns that Ian wants to steal the Declaration. After Iantries to snuff Ben, Ben decides the only way to stop Ian from getting theDeclaration is to steal it himself. This leads to an action packed race tofind the National Treasure

Overall the story is entertaining as long as you can suspend belief. The story is a wee bit contrived as they immediately and accurately translatecryptic clues. The trip is funny and action packed but suffers from a weakending. Nonetheless, it is an enjoyable popcorn movie with plenty of fluff.I liked it and would give it three stars.

The LA Times recently carried an articleGOP Plants Flag on New Voting Frontier. The story attempts to explain how Bush carried 97 of the nation's 100 fastest growing counties. The wins in these counties accounted for over half of his 3 million vote victory. All of these counties are exurban communities that are dominated by young families who have left urban areas to find more affordable housing and to remove their kids from the destructive influences of urban area.

These families are not the winners of life's lottery. They are thehard working middle class trying to improve the lives of their families.

These are places defined more by aspiration than accumulation, filled morewith families starting out than with those that have already reached theirearnings peak.
...
The high-growth counties are not especially affluent. The median income isabove the national average in 71 of them, but in only about one-fifth areincomes even 50% above the national average. In only 40 of them is thepercentage of college graduates higher than the national average.

Why do the writers of this story seemed so surprised? These are youngparents with new families. They are parents who no longer focus solely onthemselves. They worry more about their health and well being of theirchildren. This shift in priorities causes a change in the decision makingprocess.

• The extra costs of raising children makes them worry more about their financial situation. They start looking at their paychecks and seeing what the government is taking from their families. They understand the need for tax breaks. For them an extra 300 dollars goes a long way.
• They worry about the values that their kids are exposed to in the modern culture. They begin to see the world in a more moral centric way. They do not want their children to have access to the depravity of pop culture that they may have enjoyed when they were single.
• Along with values, the education of their children becomes more important. They see the suburbs providing better schools, and they want their kids to have the best chance to succeed.

There is nothing like children to make people more conservative. Thecontinued growth of the younger middle class will continue to bringfruitful gains for the GOP in future elections.

• My freedom
• My health
• My beautiful wife
• My parents and sister
• The rest of my family and family-in-law
• My friends
• My house and other worldly possesions
• My job
• My cats

Bush needs to speak out against this tyrannical practice, and lead the fightfor true democracy in the Ukraine. Freedom is freedom, and we should be standing up for it around the world regardless of the situation. If not, we will be lessened as a people and our victory in Iraq will mean a little less.

At least 122 political organizations have registered to run in Iraq's Jan. 30elections, thrilling organizers but setting the stage for tough bargainingover the next eight days.

Many of the parties are expected to combine in loose coalitions as theyseek to maximize their seats in a new national assembly. Such alliancesmust be declared to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) by the endof this month.

Even so, voters will face a bewildering array of choices. There arereligious parties representing Shi'ite Muslim, Sunni Muslim andChristian voters; secular parties with religious affiliations orregional interests; parties organized around sheiks and clerics; andparties devoted simply to justice, democracy or equal rights."We have so many parties, so many people wanting to participate,"said Farid Ayar, a spokesman for the IEC. "It is wonderful. I amhappy."

This article paints a very different picture than what we are hearing fromthe MSM. The MSM wants us to believe that the Arab culture is not prone todemocracy, and that United States is becoming even more entrenched in anIraqi "quagmire". The MSM points to the growing insurgency in Iraq as proofof their reasoning. In reality we see from Belmont Club'sTriangle of Death 2 article is that the insurgents have their supplies andcommunication lines destroyed by the loss of Fallujah and are becoming evenmore marginalized than ever.

Regardless of the standing of the insurgency, the MSM should be reportingthe overwhelming embrace of democracy by the majority of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have 122 political organizations already formed. Thatis an incredible number. All of these groups are trying to form loosecoalitions to maximize their representation in the new government. The quotefrom Farid Ayar sums it up nicely: "We have so many parties, so manypeople wanting to participate. It is wonderful. I am happy".

The bottom line is that all people yearn to be free. As much asthe left has warned us of a "quagmire" in Iraq, I would think theywould be jumping up and down at this news. Shouldn't they be thrilledthat the Iraqi's are moving forward to govern themselves?

No, admitting success in Iraq would only show that Bush, the Republicans,and the red states, were right all along. This is the same mistake theleft made with Reagan and the Soviet Union. In the eighties they saidthe same things about the Soviet Union they are now saying about the MiddleEast. And as history has consistently shown, the power of freedom alwaysovercomes tyranny. And like the left did with Reagan, they will jump onthe bandwagon once Iraq becomes a success story. The left will claim(lie) they always supported the policies in Iraq. Once againhistory will repeat itself.

On a side note, this story provides one more illustration of theleft's failure to grasp the universal pull of freedom. Or maybe they doand just wish to ignore it. Why would they ignore it? Maybe because freedom hasa tendency to destroy there Utopian dreams of big brother government.

I was actually watching the game whenthe fightoccurred. I don't like to admit that I was watching the NBA. Especiallywhen everyone knows that college basketball is infinitely better. But whenyou are at the local tavern drinking a Guiness you tend to watch whateverhappens to be on television. What happened to be on was the game.

The strange part was the reaction by so many different commentators. All ofthem were talking about how disgraceful the players acted. Personally, Ithought they behaved in a less than ideal manner. I also believethe deserved the sentences handed down by Stern today.

The really sad thing is it wasn't isolated to those behind the bench. Asthe players were going to the locker room fans were dousing the playerswith a wide variety of beverages. In my opinion anyone who threwsomething should be banned from all sports. There is no place in any sportfor fans who have no control. They need to be banned from all sportsso they can't start riots that hurt all involved.

Yesterday the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran opinion pieces on what theDemocrats need to do to recover from the losses in the 04 election.Dianne Glass's articleis typical of many Democrat's response to this election. All they need todo is repackage their failed ideology and Middle America will be gullibleenough to buy it.

You want to run for president? Wear baseball caps and drink beer inan aluminum can. This imparts a quaint, guy-next-door persona. Voterswill want to have a beer with you, talk to you and share a fewlaughs. You'll be the kind of president everyone can understand, not thescary intellectual who can outsmart them.

Mispronounce a few words. Don't strive for flawless oratory. This onlychallenges our collective intelligence. It makes us feel like wedidn't study enough before turning on the television. People don't liketo think while watching TV. When in doubt, look energetic.

To believe this line of reasoning, you have to make the assumption that thesilent majority in America is too stupid to vote for anyone else. Sheconfirms this demeaning view with her explanation of how the "new"candidate should talk to Middle America.

Debate emotional topics, not critical policy issues....Rule No. 1 in a presidential campaign is use soundbytes.Instead of explaining your stand, simply use buzz words like familyvalues,the war on terror,or evil hearts. These short, meaningless phrasesmeet the 130-character limit for PDAs....

Once again, the liberals blame American's for being to stupid instead ofunderstanding that their policies are not popular because people know theydon't work. We have too much evidence from the failed great societyprojects for the left to paint a rosy picture or say we just need to tweak it.

The funny thing about this article is that she is saying all the left needsto do is fool the American people into doing what is right for them.The paternal left, thinks another Bill Clinton can hoodwink the Americanpeople into voting for the Democrats. Once again the problem with this lineof reasoning is two fold. One a majority of Americans never votedClinton into office. Two, America doesn't want a used car salesman in theWhite House. One of the reasons Bush did so well is because he is theantithesis of Bill Clinton. He is a straight shooter that doesn't hidebehind the meaning of the word "is".

The most interesting part of this article is understanding whyshe truly believes in this course of action. She thinks that greatconservative leaders like Bush and Reagan only won because of packaging.It has to be because these men were bigoted, trigger happy, only for therich morons.

What they still fail to comprehend, is that Reagan and Bush won becausethey have been successful at explaining to America the positive conservativeagenda that resonates with so many in Red America. This is a policy offreedom, self reliance, and the celebration of entrepreneurial spirit thathas made this country the greatest on Earth.

The good news for conservatives is the overwhelming arrogance of the leftwill only cause them to blame stupid Americans rather than address the realproblem of continual support of failed policies. That will only lead tomore years of Republican dominance.

Normally, I am not a big fan of Mort, but he has avery insightful article about the current state of Democrats and where they need to go from here. He rightly states that they are now minority party, and their only chance to reverse their status is to become the party of reform. He also rightly points out that it will be nearly impossible to do that without pissing off a number of their special interest groups. Fortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon, so we can all rest easy with the fact that the Democrats will continue to be a minority party.

Other Articles

• Oliver North writes about the untold story of the Marine's shooting of an wounded terrorist in Fallujah.
• The Wall Street Journal has an editorial that explains Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weaponry and what can be done to stop it.
• From powerline today there is a powerful entry Sharansky's message. Natan Sharansky, former Soviet prisoner and current Israeli cabinet minister, tells two stories about his words of praise for both Reagan and W when he had the opportunity to meet them. He thanked them for standing up for freedom even though both were derided and hated for it.
• Ruffian has a funny post today about debunking a Berkeley study on voter irregularity.

At first, I was amused by these stories of post election stress disorders.But it is three weeks since the election and we getanother article about depression from the election results. This isabsolutely ridiculous.

I remember when Clinton won the white house the second time. We joked aboutleaving the county, but no one was ever serious about it. And yeah, I wasdown after the election. For one day. Then I realized it was time to moveon with my life.

The reality is that the president has very little to do with your success.You can be successful regardless of who is in the white house. In Covey'sSeven Habits of Highly Effective People, he tells us that all people havea circle of concernthat is comprised of all of things we care about deeply. Inside this area is our circle of influence, and with the circle of influence is our circle of control.

By working within our circle of control we can expand our circle ofinfluence. By expanding our circle of influence we gain more control overour area of concern. The occupant of the white house has nothing to dowith our circle of control or our circle of influence. By spending timeworrying about things outside of your circle of control (like who wins anelection), you are shrinking your circle of control and therefore shrinkingyour circle of influence.

Bottom line is you control your own fate. You are not a dependent unless youmake yourself a dependent. Of course I am not surprised that the left isgoing through this process. They are the masters of creating victims, andnow they can claim a new victim status: victims of stupid red neck American. I guess they made this bed and are now they are lying in it.

My challenge to the left is stop feeling sorry for yourself and move onwith your life. Besides I am tired of hearing you whine.

Thomas Sowell has a greatarticle covering the latest scandal in Iraq concerning the soldier'sshooting of a wounded terrorist. He lays out what the "the Geneva Convention"is and how it applies to our fight with terrorists. He rightly points outthat the treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to terrorists sincethey do not wear uniforms from a nation that has signed the treaty. Therefore,they are not covered by the treaty. Great read!

Another interesting readcomes from KarlynH. Bowman at the American EnterpriseInstitute for Public Policy. She talks about the appointment of supremecourt justices and how the public feels about it.

The most fascinating parts of the story come from polling data. A pollfrom AP/Ipsos and Fox News both show that 59% of registeredvoters (not likely voters) are comfortable with Bush's selecting the nextnominee. Furthermore, another AP/Ipsos poll shows that 56% wanted asomewhat to very conservative supreme court justice.

Finally, an ABC News poll showed that 56% of respondents wanted thenext person appointed to the court be someone who favors states powerrather than federal power. The same poll also found that 60% want anominee who will follow the original intentions of the authors of theConstitution rather than interpreting what the Constitution means in currenttimes.

These are unbelievable numbers. No matter how much the MSM, the schoolsystem, and the universities try to shove liberalism upon the mainpopulation, Middle America continues to ignore the siren's call. Insteadthe people of Middle America understand our founding fathers better thanthe elitists. The silent majority understands the principles that made our country great and they continues to stand up for those ideals and traditions.

The city of Lexington Kentucky in the past six months introduced a smokingban on all public locations including restraunts and bars. The ban wasbravely fought against by the owners of the affected establishments becausethey knew the negative impact it would have on their business. Once themeasure went into effect it did indeed impose a downturn in thoseindustries including the closing of a very nice cigar bar that I usedto occasionally visit when I lived in the Lexington area. Nothing likea law that makes owning a legal business illegal.

It seems to me if this idea was so overwhelmingly desired, thenbusinesses would have voluntarily banned smoking without compulsorymeasures from the city. I think it is safe to assume that the peoplerunning the businesses effected would best know how a smoking banwould impact them. Which is why they so vociferously opposed the measure.

Anyway, a local radio station played awonderful hoax recently in which they told thier listeners that thecity had inacted an ordinance that banned smoking in cars. They even hadfake callers call in to the show saying that they had been pulledover by cops.

The city received 875 calls to the centralized information center for themayor, city council, and council clerk. The police department recieved anadditional 375 calls. All in an 8 hour period.

When I heard about this, I busted out laughing in my car. The wholeincident perfectly illustrates once again that any good hoax must be bothoutrageous and believable. If the city hadn't already implementeddraconian smoking laws then this would never have been believed.

Of course local officials had no sense of humor (liberals never do) aboutthe incident. In fact the mayour was planning to file a complaint with theFCC until someone in her office decided how assinine and petty that wouldappear to the public.

The sad thing about the whole incident is it will inevitably give the anti-smoking people a new crusade. The more bizarre the cause the morelikely it is to be taken up by some leftist wacko group. I can just hearcomplaints about second hand passenger smoke, and how drivers are morereckless when they smoke. We will have to wait and see.

The ACLU is at it again! They are going after a most nefarious group ofyoung men. This is a group that indoctronates young minds and corruptsthere soul. This is a group that is a scourge on society that must beabolished if we are to remain free. I am just glad that the ACLU is takingup this battle.

Pentagon to warn bases on Scouts
By Mike Robinson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide thatthey should not directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolvingaccusations that the government has improperly supported a group thatrequires members to believe in God.

The settlement, announced yesterday, stemmed from a lawsuit filed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which said U.S. military unitshave sponsored hundreds of Boy Scout troops.

"If our Constitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality,the government should not be administering religious oaths ordiscriminating based on religious beliefs," said ACLU lawyer Adam Schwartz.

The Pentagon said it long has had a rule against sponsorship of nonfederalorganizations and denied that the rule had been violated. But it agreed tosend a message to posts worldwide warning them not to sponsor Boy Scouttroops or other such groups.

....

The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separationof Church and State, called the Pentagon's new warnings to allmilitary bases "very wise advice."

"It's important that the federal government -- including themilitary -- not sponsor any organization that discriminates on thebasis of religion."

The Boy Scouts does discriminate, he said, in that it requires membersto believe in God.

"In the long run, this change will be a good protection for religiousfreedom and diversity," Mr. Lynn said.

Yesterday's settlement does not resolve other ACLU chargesinvolving government spending that benefits the Boy Scouts, such asmoney used to prepare a Virginia military base for the Boy ScoutJamboree and grants used by state and local governments to benefitthe Boy Scouts, Mr. Schwartz said.

More choice quotes from another article on the story.

Pentagon drops Boy Scouts
November 16, 2004
BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter

The U.S. Department of Defense has agreed to stop sponsoring theBoy Scouts, according to a legal agreement announced Monday.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois sued the Pentagon andother government agencies in 1999, saying their funding of the BoyScouts was unconstitutional because the organization excluded peoplewho did not swear an oath to God.

"It is critical that the Pentagon send this very clear signal to itsunits across the globe to insure that government officials are notengaged in religious discrimination in their official capacity,"said Charles Peters, a lawyer with the firm Schiff Hardin, whoassisted the ACLU of Illinois.

These articles capture the mentality of the ACLU and the left. Yes, let'sgo after the Boy Scouts because they believe in God. We can't havechildren exposed to such non-sense. Oh, the Horror of believing in God!!!!

This isn't the first attack upon the Boy Scouts. It is another in a longline of attacks upon one of the great positive influnces on young men today.I was a former Boy Scount and an Eagle Scout. I learned not onlywoodland skills, but first aid, leadership and values which are a part ofmy life today. Below is the Scout Oath and Law. Are these not the typesof values we want instilled in our children? What is wrong with thegovernment backing an organization that provides such a strongpositive influence on children? Why does the ACLU find it more importantto stamp out what is good while protecting that which is wroung?

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout LawA Scout is...

• Trustworty
• Loyal
• Helpful
• Friendly
• Courteous
• Kind
• Obedient
• Cheerful
• Thrifty
• Brave
• Clean
• Reverent

These are the values of the Red States. These are the values of MiddleAmerica. As long as the liberals that run the Democratic party and groupslike the ACLU continue to deride and spit upon these values they willcontinued to lose the middle of America.

Over the weekend, I once again heard a group of announcers blasting theBCS for using computer rankings in the decision making process. I am sosick and tired of the experts bashing the computer systems asunreliable. The say stupid things like

Computers can't see the teams play

Computers can't judge talent

Of course humans are known for being great arbiters of impartially judgingtalent. We only have look to the AP and Coaches poll to see the lemmingmentality that creates polls that are nothing more than sophisticatedbubble sorts. How can I say this? Because it is rare for a team to jumpahead of another team unless the team ahead losses a game.

We also see humans bias based on the most recently played games. This pastweekend Auburn beat Georgia. Now, after trailing Oklahoma and USC in the pollsall year, it is now imperative that Auburn should play in the nationalchampionship game. What is even funnier is that this decision influenced byAuburn's decisive margin of victory over Georgia. Here I thought thatmargin of victory shouldn't play a role in determining who was better.

So how can we test our hypothesis that computers might be better thanhumans? What would be a fair judge to determine the accuracy of thecomputers? The best mechanism humans have to judge team differentials isthe sports line. The line is the magic number which will allow bookies tocollect an even amount of money on both sides of the line which maximizesthe bookies profit. Since this is a natural system where accuracy meansmillions of dollars it is probably the most accurate humans can be atdistinguishing the differences between teams.

Now it is unfair for computer polls to be evaluated until late in theseason because there is insufficient data for the polls to be accurate.Computer polls become more accurate as more data is fed into them. That iswhy they are great determiners at the end of the season and notmid-season.

Since we are near the end of the year, it is a good time to compare humansvs the evil computer. For this test, we are going to select the Massey ratingswhich is the best of the computer ranking systems. It was designed topredict point spreads for football games. Below is a chart comparing theMassey ratings versus the odds makers in 15 random games.

As you can see there is not much of a difference between the odds makersspread and the Massey ratings spread. In fact the average differencebetween the Line and the oddsmakers are 3.06 points. Even though this is arelatively low number, its statistical significance is not negligible. Solet's look at the results from the actual games to see which method wasmore accurate.

When we look at the game results, the Massey rating was closer tofinal score than the line in 9 out of the 14 games where they had a linedifference. That would appear to make the computers more accurate than theline. Of course this is a limited data set which is not conclusive, but itdoes hint at the fact that computers are at least as good atindicating how teams will do against each other as humans are. And there isreason to believe that they may even be better. Most of this is due to thefact that computers can absorb and analyze more data without prejudice.

Speaking of prejudices, I heard an ABC commentator blast Boise St foralmost getting beat by San Jose State and then turn around and praiseTexas as a great team because they came from behind to beat a dreadfulKansas team. And it appeared that Kansas may have been screwed by theofficials.

All of this points to the fact that maybe, just maybe, we should befollowing the computer polls rather than human experts.

Line Comparison From Last Week's Games

I want to express my sincerest gratitude to all the Veterans of the U.S.Military. You are truly the men and women that define the character that isthe backbone of our country. Your tireless work to defend not only oursoil, but the principles of liberty deeply ingrained in the American Spirit.

Thank You!

I was reading Hugh Hewitt's blog todaywhen I was deeply moved and inspired by the eulogy for 1st Lt. Joshua Palmer who was killed recently in Iraq. His story illustrates the greatness of ourmilitary, and the reason we are truly the greatest country in the world.I have reprinted it in full below.

"Joshua Michael Palmer was born on Nov. 28th, 1978. He loved to read, he���s read more books than most people have heard of. He particularly loved history and politics. He also played football in High School. He had a very close group of friends while growing up, called the Banning Boys. They were like brothers. In High School, he was known as a leader. He was the guy who always knew what to do, in any situation. While in High School, he went on a trip with his friends to Mexico, and saw the children selling Chiclets gum on the streets. He saw the corruption of the government, and vowed that he would never let that sort of corruption ruin the lives of his children, or the children of America. That���s when he decided to join the Marine Corps., to protect America from that sort of life. He began attending ���Poolies��� meetings right away (because he wasn���t old enough to join) and he practiced with the marines each weekend. He was the only soldier in the history of that unit to be promoted before actually being a marine. When they found out that he wasn���t actually a marine, because he wasn���t old enough, they couldn���t believe it. He got special permission to join when he was 17, but his mom had to sign waiver. Josh joined with two of his best friends, John Thompson and Ryan Hansen. He had one brother, and a mother and father. His parents divorced when he was in the 7th grade, and it had a lasting impact on his life. His family never really understood him. They thought that he was too determined, always trying to be better and do more. He tried to explain to them that he wanted to be someone in the world; that he wanted to do something important, to help people; but they never really understood.

I was engaged to Josh. He sent me flowers all the time. He loved to give people gifts. For my birthday, he spent hours wrapping each gift perfectly, and when it was time to open them, he wouldn���t let me, because he had spent so much time wrapping them. He took very good care of the people he loved. Josh worked hard at everything. He learned Spanish in 2 weeks, enough so that he could pass a fluency test and graduate college early. He wanted to graduate early so that he could become an officer in the Marine Corps., and then serve his country. He was in the top of his class at OCS (Officer Candidate School). Because of this, he could choose any MOS, or field in the Marine Corps. ���He chose the infantry because he believed it was the heart of the Marine Corps.���, is how his best friend, Dominic Persechini explained it to Josh���s family. They were upset he had joined the infantry. Infantry is one of the most dangerous MOSs in the Marine Corps, but Josh wanted to make a difference, and actually fight for what he believed in, so he was willing to do it.

In college, when they passed out the reading lists for class, he had usually already read most of the books on the list. He often debated with his professors. He graduated from SDU, San Diego State University, with a degree in International Relations, political science. While he was there, he was selected from among the entire student body, to accompany a professor down to Mexico, to present a study on drug enforcement reform to the Mexican Government. He spoke in front of what would be the Senate for us. His love for children wasn���t just for his and America���s, he was determined to do something about the world���s children, and to fight for their future. That���s why he worked so hard to be selected to present this study. He believed that stopping drugs in Mexico would be one way to help the kids have a better future. It���s also why he decided to go to China for a few months, while waiting for TBS (officer training school in the Marine Corps.), and to learn Chinese.

Josh hated Communism. He saw what it had done to the people of the world. Once, a professor in college told the class that he thought Communism was the best way to live, that we ought to share everything, all of our money, and that doctors ought to be paid the same as gardeners. Josh stood up and asked the teacher to give his paycheck to the gardener, who was working outside. The professor was stunned for a minute, so Josh continued. He said ���If it���s so great, why don���t you start? Sign over a check, right now���. The professor had never been confronted this way before. Josh always, always stood up for what he believed in. That is one thing that all of his friends have vowed to do, in memory of him, because it was so important to him that people live by their words and stand up for their beliefs. On anther occasion, this same professor began talking about the Holocaust. Josh calmly walked to the front of the class, and wrote 10,000,000 + on the board, the number of people killed by Communism. He turned to the class and said ���The Nazis killed 6 million Jews. Communism has killed many more people, of all religions. Yet our professor will talk to you about how evil the Nazis were, but not tell you how evil Communism is.��� Then he sat down. He was also known for his knowledge about Chinese history. His professor of Chinese History often asked him to lecture in the class. Why had he studied Chinese history so much? For the same reason he went to Mexico. He hated the corruption that had destroyed its future, and he was working on a way to try and help. He went to China to learn the language, and had plans to go back with a political group. Josh believed that, as humans, it is our responsibility to care for the people on our earth, and to help each other out, by the most effective means. Not just giving them money, but actually helping.

Josh also believed that it is a person���s responsibility to become educated. He said that we shouldn���t rely on others to do it, like the schools. It is our responsibility, and we have to do it for ourselves. That���s why he read so much. He wanted to know things, so that he could help. When he was 7, he and his mother were driving by a soccer field and he said ���Look at all those parents who are allowing their kids to play soccer. Don���t they know it���s destroying their brains?��� (He thought that having the ball hit their head would do brain damage over time. Even as a kid, he though it was important to develop our minds.)

He was so proud to go to Iraq. The same as when he had vowed to help the Mexican children, and the Chinese children, he felt that he could now help the Iraqi children. The week before Josh was killed, he had requested special permission to stay another year in Iraq. He didn���t want to leave until the work was done. He loved the kids there. He wrote home, asking for candy and toys, because he loved giving it to the kids and watching them smile. Every night, he ate dinner with Iraqi families. He loved them, and they loved him. He believed in what we are doing there. He told my cousin Laura that he wanted these children to have the chance to grow up with democracy, the way he did, so that they would have an honest chance of making their lives better. ���Josh was exceptionally passionate about service to his country��� was the way that one of his best friends, Ryan Hansen described him. Josh had a deep seated belief that the military had a benevolent purpose in the development of countries. One of his favorite books, Starship Troopers, talks about the military���s role in society. Dominic, when asked to describe why Josh had joined the Marine Corps., said, ���He was a great student of history and he thought that it was warriors that make countries strong and prosperous.���.

On April 8th, in the afternoon, Josh���s convoy began taking sniper fire as they entered Fallujah. Josh was a first lieutenant, and led a group of men. Some of the men in the convoy, from another lieutenant���s unit, were injured by the sniper fire. It was determined that someone needed to hunt down the snipers and kill them, before they killed any of the men in the convoy. Josh had been trained in sniper hunting, and volunteered. He led a small group of men into the area where the snipers were. They pinpointed the snipers��� location and ran to the building were the snipers were located. Josh didn���t hesitate, he just ran. When they got there, they began clearing rooms with grenades. When they got to the room where the snipers were, Josh insisted on being in front. Usually officers stay in the back, because their lives are considered more valuable. But Josh had always said that he would never send his men somewhere he wouldn���t go himself, and the test of a true leader was whether or not he led from the front. It was known that there was a very high chance that the person in front would be shot, as they were so close to the snipers, and the snipers were waiting for them. Josh still went in front. He probably knew that he was going to be shot, but he wouldn���t allow someone else to die when he could have prevented it. So he leaned forward and threw the grenade. As he did, he fell a little bit forward, and was shot many times all up his left side and into his neck. Immediately his men pulled him back, and killed the sniper who had shot Josh, the other two snipers were taken prisoner. They pulled Josh to a safe location, where he eventually bled to death. The photo I have, which many of you have seen in the papers, is of Josh���s men praying over him, just after he died.

It is important to know that the snipers, when the US soldiers got there, were strapped with C-4, a very dangerous explosive. They were cowards and monsters. They had enough to blow up the entire city block. It was a civilian block, and many innocent people would have been killed. Josh died protecting other people, the same as the way he had lived. Somehow, it doesn���t seem real that someone like him existed here, someone with such high ideals and such brave determination. Josh���s captain, Captain Smith, said that Josh was an unreal soldier, that he���d never met someone so strong in his convictions and so devoted to a cause. We are left to wonder why it is so often those that are so great, that live with such nobility, are the ones to die. The answer is that, because of their nobility and greatness, they are the first to volunteer. It is often the better people who end up giving their lives for others. My cousin Laura, Josh���s girlfriend, said that she knew something like this would probably happen, because Josh was the type of person who would volunteer his life, if he thought it would help someone else. These are our heroes, the men and women who believe in the greatness of our country, and want to share that greatness with the world, so much so that they are willing to give their lives, on the small chance that some other poor, underdeveloped country will have freedom like ours I want everyone to know how much I love Josh, and how proud I am of him and the type of man he is. And that, because I love him, and I know how important these ideals are to him, I would do the whole thing again, because I knows that, even if Josh were told that he would die in Iraq, he would have gone anyway, because he believes it is that important. God bless our troops, and God bless America."

The winners from this years election are easy to find. George Bush is thebiggest winner. He stood resolute and unwavering in his decision making andhe was rewarded with a rather large affirmation vote from the American people.Other winners include:

• Carl Rove - Many criticized and even scoffed at his strategy for winning the election. I am sure he is continuing to smile.
• Republican Party - The Republican party picked up seats in both the Senate and the House solidifying the re-alignment of this country that could last for a couple of decades.
• Hillary Clinton - Oddly enough, her presidential aspirations got a big boost from the re-election of Bush. Why? If Kerry had won, then in eight years Edwards would have been a much more serious candidate with real experience.
• Bloggers - This groups was awesome in distributing news to counter the Main Stream Media's bias (see losers). They are an up and coming news source that will cause the Main Stream Media continual headaches.
• Iraqi People - They will continue to have in the White House a president who is friendly to the liberalization and democratization of their country
• Morality - Those in favor of a moral society based on the tenants of main stream religion won out over moral relativism. And the effects will be felt in the Supreme Court.

The big loser on election night was John Edwards. He is politically done. Heis no longer in the Senate. He has no experience to be president. He is theVP candidate for a losing candidate. He will not be around to seriouslycontend in '08. Other losers include:

• Democratic Party - This loss may ensure that they are the minority party in the Congress for some time.
• Main Stream Media - They threw non-partiality to the wind in this election. How? They tanked good economic news. They tried to spike Bush with a weapons theft (which didn't occur) the week before the election. They made up false documents about Bush's guard duty. Bottom line is they pitched a tent in the John Kerry camp and worked diligently to defeat Bush and lost. Now they have no credibility with a majority of Americans. I suspect their ratings will continue to dwindle and the rise of the blogs will continue.
• George Soros - He spent millions and millions try to smear and overthrow the Bush presidency. All he got was another 4 years of Bush.
• Michael Moore - The Goebbels of the Democratic party went so far as to make a fictional "documentary" that brutalized Bush. For this, he was celebrated in liberal circles for exposing the "truth" about the Bush administration. He was one of the leading instigators for whipping up the liberal's putrid venom and hate filled campaign. Ironically, it is the insane hatred for Bush that has caused all of the post election blues for the liberals. Moore's picture on the web site of George Bush made up of the American soldiers who lost their lives shows he continues to have real class, even in defeat.

Our founding fathers where leaders who believed in the basic rights offreedom for all men. They understood that all yearn for freedom from tyrannyand desire the pursuit of happiness. The founders were self reliant, menof deep faith and conviction who had the courage to fight for the freedomof self determination without the weight of government.

On Tuesday, by electing Bush and a Republican majority, we reaffirmed ourcommitment to the beliefs of our fore fathers. These same values thatelevated us to the greatest nation on Earth. Not only did we reaffirmour founding principals, but we reasserted our leadership in the world.

On 9/11 we were attacked by the world's leading force for evil. Insteadof letting freedom's light flicker, our country headed the call and withgreat courage defended our freedom and prosperity. We stood upto face our enemies rather than settle for appeasement. Fortunately, anumber of world leaders rallied to our cause. The only ones who didn'twere the true coalition of the coerced and bribed. Bribed by a food for oil scandal that is only now beginning to be unearthed in full.

To battle Islamic fascism, Bush understood the need to bring democracy tothe people of the Middle East. To liberate them from the fascism and instillupon the people of this region the same principles that made our country great. Bush understands that all people, regardless of culture, yearn for freedom. They too desire the basic human right of liberty and selfdetermination. It is the basic principals of the human spirit that will defeat our enemies. If we hold strong and promote democracy, theterrorists will have no more room to hide and will be eliminated. Bringingfreedom and peace to another region of the world.

For at least four more years, the United States continues to be that shining city on top of the hills.

The day after the election Arlen Spector came out and warned Bush not to appoint any conservative judges (pro-life) to the Supreme Court. He would personally make sure that any conservative Bush nomination would not make it though his committee. As head of the Judiciary committee he has the power to block judges from making it through the process (Robert Bork). This is a fine howdy-do for a candidate who only survived the primary because Bush came to the state and campaigned for him.

The Republicans in the Senate need to stand up and remove him from theJudiciary committee where he can not obstruct the president's ability toappoint justices who strictly interpret the constitution.

I have been able to review my predictions for the election and noticed howaccurate my score card played out and how good my over/under line really was.Once we remove Hawaii from the middle of my score card which was the leastlikely poll result to be sustained on election day, we see that Ohio is thebreaking point between the two candidates. Interestingly enough Bush gotevery state on his side of the line which he needed to seal the victoryand Kerry came up one state short of the line.

As I watched the returns, I kept looking for either candidate to pick upa state on the other side of the line and neither one did which explainswhy I was up till 5 AM watching returns.

As for my predictions on the electoral college, I was right on the money.My best scientific guess was the race would be a 2-3 point victory for Bush (which it was). I thought that would give Bush Wisconsin and New Hampshire (which he almost won) and a 296-242 victory. Instead, Kerry did better in the swing states than the national average which allowed him to keep Wisconsin and New Hampshire (more on the swing states later). These two close pickupsallowed Kerry to beat my over/under number. On the day after, itappears that my over/under number was very nearly ideal.

Personally I though Bush was going to out perform the polls and win witha larger margin of 4-5 points. Had this occurred Bush would have likely picked up Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and possibly Pennsylvania which would have made my election prediction accurate. The bottom line is my scoring model proved highly accurate,

Note on swing states: It appears the reason my model was slightly off was due to the true middle of the road swing states. These handful ofstates did not follow the national trends and actually trended closer toKerry. This has to be attributed to Democrats doing an amazing job getting the vote out. This allowed them to do slightly better than the national average and make Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire competitive while giving them a comfortable margin in Minnesota, Michigan, andPennsylvania. In fact, if the Republicans hadn't done an incredible jobthemselves getting their vote out Kerry may well have won this election.

The problems for the Democrats moving forward is two fold. The election mapcontinues to favor the Republicans. They have solidified their control onthe South, expanded their margin in the South West and are competitive inthe upper Midwest. It is going to be difficult for Democrats to puttogether a winning state combination in four years. The much more severeproblem for the Democrats is the budding ability of Republicans to getpeople to the polls. This is an area the Democrats have always dominatedthe Republicans. Once the Republicans perfect a system, the Democrats mayhave a very difficult time winning the house, senate, or another nationalelection for the foreseeable future.

Comments: 4:32 AM

Bush wins Ohio!!!! Bush wins Presidency!!!!! -- I am going to bed. Good night and God bless the USA.

Bush looks to win Iowa and New Mexico as of now. Since it looks like Kerry is going to win Wisconsin it all comes back to the pathetic challenge in Ohio. It appears the final electorial vote will be Bush 296 Kerry 252

The biggest suprise so far is the poor accuracy of the exit polls. I think that will be one of the biggest scandals of this election. The only other suprise was how close the electorial college ended up. I thought Bush would do better than he did. It appears that kudos should go out to the Kerry campaign for doing a much better job than I thought they would getting people out to vote.

I am watching Dan Rathers and I keep thinking about Bagdad Bob. This is hysterical.

It was a great night for Republicans. They have won the presidency and picked up house and senate seats! The Republicans picked up 4 seats in the Senate including the defeat of Tom Daschle and added three seats in the house. Hopefully, they will use the next two years to get a conservative agenda passed!

Kentucky Results:

• In a mild suprise Anne Northup has been declared the winner in the 3rd congressional district at the beginning of the evening. I figured she would win but not by the margin she will win by
• Bunning has won the Senate race! It was a tougher race than it should have been
• It looks like Davis has beat Clooney. This is a nice upset as the 4th district comes home to the Republican party.

I am glad election day is finally here. This election season has seemed tolast forever. Today is the day when America determines what type ofcountry America will be in the future. Do we want to be the leader forfreedom in the world? or do we want to neuter America and take our placealongside the Europeans as being irrelevant in the world? That is the questionthat awaits Americans as they go to the polls today to vote.

As we wait for the polls to change all kind of news is flying across theInternet. The most disturbing are the numerous instances of cheatingthe Democrats are attempting to pull. They are truly the party that will notonly say anything to get elected, but will nowdoanythingto win.

But I must admit it is fun to watch the rumors on early exit polling data thatis floating around the web. It is absolutely assinine to even begin to thinkabout exit polling data until the end of the night. A number of places arepointing to this article to explain why.

So don't worry about what you read on the web, the silent majority will ensure a great night for Republicans! Stay tuned, I will be posting my thoughts as the results come in after seven this evening.

As we head into the final days before the election, it is time to puttogether the scorecard for next Tuesday's election. The scorecard takes thepolling averages for each swing state and places them in numeric order.With this data we can compare results from election night and see what thetrend is to pick the presidential winner as early as possible. So what doesthe data tell us?

First off Bush has 191 electoral votes to start with. These states includeAlabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma,South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virgina, Wyoming

For Kerry the base is 149 electoral votes whose states areCalifornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewYork, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington DC.

The states remaining are the swing states and the only ones we truly careabout on election night. Below is a list of swing states in the order ofthe polling data found on Real ClearPolitics. I am using the polling data from Saturday because that is thelast of the accurate data since weekends are notoriously pro-democrat andwe want the most accurate data available for making this chart. Since wehaven't seen any "late breaking" dirty pool these numbers will give us agood base to start.

Colorado (9)        Bush  +6.5          200Missouri (11)       Bush  +4.7          211West Virginia (5)   Bush  +4.0          216New Mexico (5)      Bush  +4.0          221Nevada (5)          Bush  +3.7          226Arkansas (6)        Bush  +3.0          232Florida (27)        Bush  +1.9          259Iowa (7)            Bush  +1.7          266--------------------------------------------- <--- Point Where Kerry WinsHawaii (4)          Bush  +0.9          270--------------------------------------------- <--- Point Where Bush WinsOhio (20)           Bush  +0.2          268Wisconsin (10)      Kerry +1.0          248Minnesota (10)      Kerry +1.7          238New Hampshire (4)   Kerry +1.7          228Pennsylvania (21)   Kerry +2.6          224Michigan (17)       Kerry +3.3          203New Jersey (15)     Kerry +4.0          186Oregon (7)          Kerry +4.7          171Washington (11)     Kerry +5.5          164Maine (4)           Kerry +8.5          153

What to look for on election eve are states on one side of the line or theother going for the opposite candidate. If Kerry loses Ohio, Wisconsin, orPennsylvania Bush will likely win. If Bush loses Florida, Arkansas, or IowaKerry will probably win. It is interesting to note that Hawaii could be theswing state in this election, but I doubt it will come to it.

Now for some predictions. If I were a bookie, I would probably set theOver/Under for Kerry at 238 electoral votes. That would be about a 2-3point victory for Bush in the final vote count. Personally, I think Bush isgoing to win the silent majority easily and will win all of the mid-west.My electoral guess is Bush winning 348-190 with a 4-5 point margin in thevote count.