Hawaiian Airlines Flight 39

This is the latest information that I've received on "the mystery" flight that resulted in F-15's from Portland scrambling to escort this plane.

From the Oregon Military Department:

"News Release from: Oregon Military Department

"PORTLAND'S F-15 FIGHTERS SCRAMBLE TO ESCORT HAWAIIAN AIRLINES FLIGHT

"Posted: January 6th, 2010 5:21 PM

"Photo/sound file: http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2010-01/962/080110-F-8260H-122.JPG (Oregon Military Department stock photo)

"Photo/sound file: http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2010-01/962/080110-F-8260H-110.jpg (Oregon Military Department stock photo)

"Salem, Ore. – Two Oregon Air National Guard F-15 fighters, under the direction of North American Aerospace Defense Command, intercepted Hawaiian Air Flight 39 in the vicinity of Portland, Ore., Today.

"The F-15s, stationed at Portland Air National Guard Base, escorted the aircraft until it landed at Portland International Airport without incident at approximately 1:15 p.m. PST, where the plane was met by law enforcement and the Transportation Security Agency.

"Hawaiian Air 39 departed Portland Airport enroute to Hawaii. Shortly after take-off, a passenger caused a disturbance on the plane and the pilot decided to return the aircraft to Portland.

"The Oregon National Guard's 142nd Fighter Wing, assigned the Air Sovereignty Alert Mission, guards the Pacific Northwest skies from northern California to the Canadian border, on 24-hour alert as part of the North American Air Defense system.

"The F-15 fighter jets become a federal asset once alerted, placing them under presidential authority.

"The Oregon Air National Guard has been an integral part of the nation's air defense since 1941, and is comprised of approximately 2,200 citizen airmen with bases in both Portland and Klamath Falls."

The following documents have been provided by the office of Gerri Badden, the United States Attorney for Oregon. Clicking on the images will allow you to see them in a larger size.

Oregon Congressman Explains Health Reform Process

When an amendment is voted out of committee unanimously, that means that all the Democrats and all the Republicans sitting on the committee voted in favour of the amendments.

That is a really good case of bi-partisanship.

Not partisanship, as in one party getting its way and ignoring the other party.

So if you wanted to pass a health care reform bill, wouldn't you want the broadest support possible for the bill? Wouldn't you think that amendments that were adopted by both Democrats and Republicans might actually improve the bill?

What is sad is that no other Oregon Congressman seems to care.

Credit most go to Gateway Pundit for finding this video.

Comedy From Democrats

This is the logo for former Governor John Kitzhaber's shadow political committee, Onward Oregon, and the reason why you should vote "Yes" on Ballot Measures 66 & 67.

Here's the argument:

"Voting Yes on Measures 66 and 67 will protect thousands of jobs right here in Oregon. If the measures fail, it will mean layoffs of teachers, nurses, in-home care workers, care providers, and state troopers. Voting Yes will bring millions of dollars into Oregon’s economy, protecting jobs and local businesses when we need them most."

If you take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the private sector, how is it that this translates into bringing "millions of dollars into Oregon's economy..."?

Well, we need to protect government jobs, silly. And that 30 percent wage increase we just gave those government workers.



There is no explanation why people who earn under $250-thousand dollars have no neck muscles. Just another unexplained mystery in this particular video.

Just what is the "sell" message in this video? That we have somehow let the "rich" and the "wealthy" off the hook. What hook is this? They haven't been paying taxes? Could that be because they haven't been making any profit? So we pass a new tax that taxes not the profit earnings of companies, but their gross revenue?

And make it retroactive.

What if you think mebbe we should spend less on government than more during a recession?



Well, that's anti-something.

What do we get from the AFL-CIO?

"$250,000 is what your family income is if Measure 66 affects you. Make less than that? Your taxes won't change a cent!"

Hope you don't work for a Sub-Chapter S employer. That income thingy that you worry about? When you're out of work, you don't have to pay an income tax. You'll still have to pay the mortgage, but you are relieved of the income tax burdern.

Remember, you're voting for Hope!™ and Change!™.

Don't be surprised when you get it.

I'm an American Indian-Hmong-Welshman of the Huron and Iroquois tribes.

More here.

Oregon: Eating Our Seed Corn

The rapidity with which we have driven home the advantages of Mr. Smith's ideas about the invisible hand is at times striking.

Four score and twenty years ago, our direct contact with the earth was near to universal. We either had a farm, or knew the farmer. We either raised our meat, or knew the butcher. The miracle of eggs and butter weren't miracles at all. They were products raised at our local dairies.

Cows and bulls came together for a freshening. Bees bumbled lazily around the sky, bringing tastes of pollen to stamen. Cold years meant failure. Wet years risked failure. Hot years risked failure. Dry years risked failure.

But the one idea that was firmly ensconced in the mind of the man who provided you with meat, vegetables or eggs was, you don't eat your seed corn.

When learning to plant corn, I learned that you must place three corn seeds into your furrow. Three seeds, spaced about 18 inches apart and one to three of those seeds would germinate. Given changes in fertility of seed corn, I'm sure that the application rates have changed dramatically in the last 40 years. As your guaranteed germination rates go up, you can cut the cost of seeding by 66 percent, no?

I've come from a farm family. Farming in the United States for more than 250 years. That's not extraordinary. Most people who have families that have lived in this country for more than 100 years were involved in farming. Farming wasn't a hobby. It was a simple way to make sure that you had some nutritional basics in your larder over the winter months. Canning was a process that most women knew and practised.

But what you never did. What you never did, was eat or sell your seed corn.

You never sold your cow.

You could work out with your neighbor (who owned a bull) the price of freshening your heifer. But you didn't need a bull. You did need a cow.

You should already be able to see those things that you could do without and those you couldn't dispense with; sow, mare, doe, ewe. Or, as a cunning linguist might say, those of the feminine genitive.

You knew it was a bad year, when you had to sell your seed to pay the bills.

Oregon, my friends, is going into a bad year.

How do I know?

It has passed legislation to take the seed corn out of every business in Oregon. Fortunately for Oregonians, we have an initiative and referendum process that allows ordinary Oregonians to take bills passed by the Legislature and refer those bills to the People. This is the case with the upcoming election on Measures 66 and 67.

In a few weeks, Oregon voters are going to have a chance to tell the Legislature whether or not they want Oregon businesses to eat their seed corn.

Well, not actually consume their seed corn, themselves. Rather, to turn over their seed corn to the State, so the State can eat the seed corn.

And still, yet, and without thought, the State will insist that businesses increase yet again it's payment to the State, as a tribute for businesses' existence. Business won't even have the option of eating its own seed corn. Just to turn over their seed corn to the State, so that public employees can have it.

The State Legislature was told that this increase in taxes would really hurt Oregon's private sector. But they boldly told us that this was going to be the cost of doing business in such a pristine heaven like Oregon.

The economy continues to wobble. These tax increases will create a new exodus of investment from the state, and a new impetus driving greater unemployment.

Taking reserve cash from private businesses to support 30 percent wage increases for public employees...

And it won't be enough! Even if the voters choose to keep these destructive taxes, we're still going to have a biennium budget shortfall.

It isn't that Republicans haven't tried to moderate the growth of public employees wages and benefits. It's just that the Democrats have a Super Majority, and are being financed by the public employee unions.

There's no conflict of interest here. As long as you believe in eating your seed corn.

The Meaning of "Is"

Thanks to David's Oregon Picayune.

"The “Vote Yes for Oregon” campaign that’s in support of tax increases on higher wage earners and on corporations intentionally printed two arguments in the section of the voters’ pamphlet reserved for the other point of view, and this has some people outraged that Oregon’s secretary of state would allow it."

"According to the secretary of state’s office, under state law it can’t keep someone from printing their argument on the opposing side because it would infringe on their freedom of speech."

And besides, what ever would "arguments in favor" and "arguments in opposition" mean without their meaning nothing?

Oregon. We do things differently here.

Least-Squares

All those years. All this result.

For those of you who still have a memory, undaunted by either age or drugs, there is a simple formula for determining the mean (average) value of a sampled set.



Take a measurement of a thing (X). The average value of X is equal to Mu (μ ). Say you have ten things, like the length of beans. One bean is 3 inches long. Another is 4 inches long. The others are 3.2, 4.2, 2.6, 3.7, 3.9, 2.1, 4.9 and 3.3 inches long. μ = the average value of all those lengths, or, the combined value of all those lengths distributed over the range of observations made.

If you make a single observation, the mean is equal to the observation. That is to say, if you measure one bean, the average length of that bean is equal to its length. While it would be true that the length of that bean is equal to its average length, the question should be asked, "why do we care?"

And, in fact, we don't.

The length of any one single thing is always equal to its mean (or average) value.

The question then becomes, how do we take a look at a class of things, in this case beans, and determine an expectation of value? This is important if we are designers of bean cans. If we intend to can whole beans it only makes sense to manufacture cans that allow us to put entire beans inside those cans. If we only intended to sell partial beans, can size is less important. Cut beans can pretty much be crammed into any size can we produce.

But let's take a look at the value of beans listed above. What are the chances that the values of bean length aren't the value of bean length (ρ, or rho)? Since we measured the beans, the chances of the lengths being different than the actual lengths is 1. This is a mathematical way of saying that the length of the beans is equal to the lengths of the beans. (Do you remember the Identity Property?)

The Sigma (Σ), or sum, or any equation when multiplied by 1 is equal to the sum. (1 is the Rho part. We measured the beans, so the probablity that the length we measured is equal to the length we measured. When a thing is a thing, the mathematical expression of this is 1.) So, the n=10 value of our beans is the sum of the length of beans divided by the number of beans we counted, or 34.9 inches (Sigma of X).

So, a restatement of the mean:



says, that the the sum of all the numbers χ (Chi), from the first number to the nth (last or final) number, when multiplied by the reciprocal, or inverse, of the amount of observations of n (our n, again is equal to ten) gives us the mean, or average of our observations.

So, we did the sum of the first x (shown with a subscript 1) plus the second x (with subscript 2) until we added all ten numbers together. The sum of x is 34.9, n = 10. The inverse of 10 is one over ten.

Or, 34.9 divided by ten.

Average length? 3. 49, or, rounding up, 3.5 inches.

How many of our beans were 3.5 inches long? Well, none. But we're not done yet. We're going to do something with our beans. We're going to can them, and to make sure we order cans that will allow us to fit entire beans by length into these cans, we need to order cans that will serve our needs, in most cases.

One of our beans was pretty long. 4.9 inches! If we made our cans to include this monster, our cans would bigger than would be necessary for more normal sized beans! Talk about a waste.

So how do we develop an understanding of what "normal sized beans" means in terms of our demand for cans?

Old guys who do math see this as a problem that can be solve with a question. How normal is the size of this sample of beans? Or, if we look at these beans as being demonstrative of the length of beans, how "normal" are these length values?

Didja ever wonder about the word "normal"? I'm either normal or not. Are you "normal"? And what are the attributes of normalcy that you must adhere to--voluntarily or not--in order for you to claim adherence to some outwardly conceived admission of normalcy?

When we examine beans, we have limited descriptive statements that can be used to determine the limits of what is or isn't a bean.

It's green. It's a longer, rather than fatter, vegetable. It is green. And it has a normal length.

But, what is a bean's normal length?

In our example of testing, we found an average length of bean to be 3 and a half inches long. (Which, if you know anything about beans, depending upon the type of bean you're growing, is a pretty average length!)

But, how "normal" is our average length, in terms of our sample?


This is a graph known as the normal Bell Curve. If you are reading this, I know that you've come across this curve at least once in your life. Mebbe it was when you took a standardized test back in high school and learned that you should end your life pumping gas. As a high-light.

There are variations on the "normally" distributed curves. These are known as "skewed" curves. If you have any idea how curves could be skewed beyond or above the normal mean value, you can skip the rest of this test. (Give yourself a B+.)

One of the more interesting questions that can be asked of the graph above is, what is meant by 1SDV, 2SDV...etc.

SDV in this case refers to Standard Deviation. ( I usually use the shorthand sd.) For all you deviates out there, this could be good news. We can measure how close to "normal" your "deviation" may be.

And cooler still, we can take your deviation, or the deviation in the length of beans, and determine, statistically, whether or not you, or the beans, fall within 68 percent of all weird deviancies--or bean length--or not.

How to do this?



First, we compute the mean for the data. We did this. 'Member the number? (3.5)

Then, we compute the deviation by subtracting the mean from each value.

3 inches long, another is 4 inches long, the others are 3.2, 4.2, 2.6, 3.7, 3.9, 2.1, 4.9 and 3.3 inches long. So, we get

3.5 minus 3.

3.5 minus 4.

3.5 minus 3.2...etc.

"Standard Deviation" isn't some magic number that only math guys can do. If we have a mean (average) value, then any value that we have in our sample that isn't exactly the same value of that mean (average) value, deviates from that value. Ain't the same, it deviates.

We're going to find out what the deviance is--the difference between each value in our sample and the mean--for each sampled value. And then we're going to "normalize" the difference of these sums. We're not simply going to take the average (mean) of the difference, we're going to take a look at the average value of the difference in terms of the mean.

Huh?

Some of the differences that we came up with were negative. Our average was 3.5. Some of our beans were only 3.2 or 2.6 inches long. Because of the "identity" property of math, what we deal with is that differences that are "positive" or "negative" are erased, because what we're looking for isn't a value that is described as either negative or positive, but as an absolute.

(For any of you who don't get the idea that negative one times negative one is equal to one, give me a note. It took me two years of asking stupid questions of professors until I found one that took the time to take me past "doing the math" into understanding the math. )

So, we're going to take the diffences of each sampled value, less the mean, and come up with a number that we're going to square, in order to remove the negative sign...that is, to come up with an "absolute" value of the difference.

So you get differences like 0.5, -0.5...0.2. We're going to remove the postive and negative signs
by squaring (n²) the differences. We've ten differences. We're going to "square" (multiply each difference by that same difference) each of the individual differences.

So, the first difference is -0.5.

What is -0.5 squared? It's -0.5 x -0.5. Or, 0.25.

The second bean length was 4.00 inches.

The difference is 0.5 inches. 0.5 x 0.5 equals 0.25 inches. (So, the "absolute" value of the diffence of two numbers is still the same!)

We go ahead and finish off the rest of the differences between our mean value and the actual value of our sample and find that the values of the differences are

-0.3

0.7

0.9

0.2

0.4

1.4

1.4

0.2

So, what are the squares of these values?

We've already done the first two.

0.25 and 0.25.

What are the next eight? I'll do a couple, then you do the rest. Math isn't hard. And statistics is just math.

-0.3 squared? 0.09.

0.7 squared? (0.7 x 0.7) 0.49.

Did you find all the squares of the differences?

Cool. Here's a note.

Most of the kids I TA'd in beginning Stats didn't have the math to do this. College Algebra is a misnomer. It is neither "college" level or taught to a level that allows children to understand math. But, I digress.

So, what is the sum of our squares? (You're not doing the math. The answer is 6.05.) (Slacker.)

So, now we divide by n-1, or one less than the sample size. (Our sample size was ten.)

Or, 6.o5 divided by 9.

Shall we? 6.05 over nine is 0.672.

We have a number! We have a number!

But, what does this number mean?

Hella good question.


See the graph?

We have one more step to take. Remember that we took the "squares" of the differences? One last step. We're now going to find the square root of the the average differences of our squares.

Yep. We transformed our diffences into squares and then we reduced that mean by one n less, and now we're going to find the square root of the difference.

What is the square root of 0.672? Remember, we're talking about the length of beans.

0.8197560612767679

But, we don't deal with this. We ended up with three decimals to the right of the decimal. So, our answer is 0.82.

So, within the first standard deviation of our bean, we could add or subtract 0.82 inches to come up with a length that would fall in our first Standard Deviation.

The mean or average length of our beans was 3.49 inches. And we have found that if the lengths of beans are normally distributed, that 68 percent of all beans are within 0.82 inches of 3.49 inches, or at the low end of the range 2.67 inches and at the high end of the range, 4.31 inches.

But "normal" distribution has nothing to do with "normal" beans. All of our beans were within the same field, from the same seeds. Geographic distances were small. Field watering was consistent. But three of our beans, at 2.1 inches, 2.6 inches and 4.9 inches, fell outside of the first standard deviation of "beans" in our normally distributed curve.

Words that mathematicians and statisticians use have very explicit meaning. Otherwise, we wouldn't know what we were talking about.

Normal distribution refers to unbiased sampling results. If we found we had biased sampling results, we have a vocabulary to deal with that bias.

But normal in a mathematician's vernacular (a statistician is a mathematician) has to do with those things we would expect to be evenly distributed. As if they were random. That there isn't a bias.

And that is, my friend, the purpose for this post.

If you have been following the "Climaquiddick" or "Climategate" posts occuring around the intertubes, you may have noticed that a great deal of the criticism being brought upon the Global Warmers has been based upon criticisms of their mathematical models.

In my simple explanation of statistics in this post, we looked at the values of lengths of beans at one particular time. We determined an average (mean) length and the expected values for bean length within one standard deviation (sd). We found that if bean length was normally distributed around the mean, that the predicted value of 68 percent of the sampled bean length being within one sd of mean was confirmed. Three of the bean lengths were found to be outside of the predicted value of the sd.

What happens to a statistical model as the number of beans sampled in a statistical measurement increases? Are there tests to find out if our statistical findings are significant? Can we draw a statistical inference about the reliability of our measurements?

Yep.

There are a lot of things that occur within the study of statistics. There are schools of statistics. Not schools, like George Washington University versus Texas Tech. There are fundamental assumptions of what we use for test for significance, difference and distribution that can vary widely and give us different results as to whether or not our findings are of any interest, or not. That is, there are closely held beliefs between certain schools of thought as to how some information should, or should not, be interpreted.

What I've shared with you today are the fundamentals of statistical analysis that are shared by most schools of statistical inference. There aren't two schools of what the definition of "mean" is. Nor are there two schools--or more--of what defines standard deviation.

But what does this analysis leave us with?

What would happen to our analysis of bean length if I'd only sample one bean, and it's length was 4.9 inches?

What would happen if I came back to this same field the following year and found another bean of 4.9 inches in length, and I decided to report my findings?

A coupla things would have happened. And this is why the discussions being undertaken by serious mathematicians, statisticians and climatologists are occuring around the globe.

There is significant attention being addressed by the "skeptics" at the methods that were employed by the "consensus" scientists who had gained the main stage on the debate of global climate change. One of these issues centers around the number of sites that were used in reporting temperature data. That is, in some instances, only one bean length was counted.

The "science" of statistics is readily accessible to all of us. If you have a background in calculus, obviously a lot of the equations are simpler. But if you rely upon algebra, there is nothing in this post that will stop you from determining for yourself that limits upon sample size will obviously affect the reported values of any statistical analysis.

Your choice is to do the math. Or, at last have enough conversance with the process that you can read a post about the statistical method and be conversant enough to follow the criticisms of the authors. The folks who are attempting to claim consensus rely upon you to have a certain deficiency in math tools to sway you with their moral suasion.

Please, don't fall for their planned moral suasion. It's easily falsifiable. But, it's up to you to understand the basics, and then ask questions.

In Which We Serve

One of the more memorable speeches given in my lifetime is one delivered by President John F. Kennedy. The date was January 20, 1961.

I provide this speech to you.

"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

"This much we pledge and more.

"To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

"To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required, not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

"To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge -- to convert our good words into good deeds in a new alliance for progress -- to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective -- to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request -- that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

"We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

"But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

"So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

"Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

"Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

"Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

"Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah -- to 'undo the heavy burdens...and let the oppressed go free.'

"And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

"All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

"In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

"Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" -- a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

"Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

"Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

How does Obama differ from this Democrat President? And, more importantly, from the union hacks who run your public schools?

Here's an example:

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. "

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. "

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "

My God. This guy is Glenn Beck.

Wolverines