Saturday, April 25, 2015

COMMON CORE...a courageous decision (Best news I've heard all day! ~ Storm'n Norm'n)

The following from
280 High Schoolers Just Told Obama to SHOVE IT in Epic Fashion
280 high schoolers – the entire junior class of Nathan Hale High School in Seattle, Washington – have effectively told President Obama and his band of progressive buffoons that they can take their Common Core and shove it.
When state testing began on Tuesday, not a single junior showed up on campus to participate, as the entire student body had collectively decided to exercise their legal right to opt out of the ‘Smarter Balanced’ exams
“They didn’t skip school all day,” commented district spokeswoman Stacy Howard, according to the Seattle Times. “They just didn’t show up during the testing period.”
The Nathan Hale students weren’t the only ones to deal this massive blow to the liberal establishment, either. According to early district estimates, about half of the juniors at three other Seattle high schools have also opted out of the Smarter Balanced testing.
“Students voted with their own feet,” remarked Doug Edelstein, a history teacher at Nathan Hale and opponent of the Common Core testing. “They felt like they knew the facts, and made their own decisions.”
Give the junior class at Seattle’s Nathan Hale High two thumbs up for taking a stand against Common Core by sharing this report!

The following from: I am an
Doug Edelstein is a teacher at Nathan Hale High School
Doug wrote the following announcement of Nathan Hale’s courageous decision to take a stand against the testocracy:
This afternoon the Nathan Hale Senate (functions as Building Leadership Team) voted nearly unanimously not to administer the SBAC tests to 11th graders this year.
The Senate also recently voted not to administer the PSAT test to 10th graders at all in the future.
Reasons for refusing the SBAC for 11th graders included (summary):
1. Not required for graduation
2. Colleges will not use them this year
3. Since NCLB requires all students pass the tests by 2014, and since few if any schools will be able to do that, all schools will therefore be considered failing by that standard. There is thus no reason to participate in erroneous and misapplied self-labeling.
4. It is neither valid nor reliable nor equitable assessment. We will use classroom based assessments to guide next instructional steps.
5. Cut scores of the SBAC reflect poor assessment strategy and will produce invalid and unreliable outcomes.
6. Student made this point: “Why waste time taking a test that is meaningless and that most of us will fail?”
7. The SBAC will tie up computer lab time for weeks.
8. The SBAC will take up time students need to work on classroom curriculum.
This is an important step. Nathan Hale is asserting its commitment to valid, reliable, equitable assessment. This decision is the result of community and parent meetings, careful study of research literature, knowledge of our students’ needs, commitment to excellence in their education, and adherence to the values and ideas of best-practice instruction.
This resolution does not mean NHHS will refuse the 10th grade SBAC assessments, sorry to say. But the way the school went about the decision is a powerful model for other schools, and means that anything is still possible in that regard.
Doug Edelstein
Note: I ran across this statement not long ago:
Lenin understood that in order to increase the effectiveness of his propaganda, the cultural level of the Russian people would have to be raised by bringing down the illiteracy rate.
Similar things are going on here in America as we speak.  Political correctness has brought down the American culture where it is no longer recognised.  It is so diverse now than it ever has been and the politic elite have encouraged it almost to the point of no return; when it reaches that point, you can kiss your red, white, and blue banner of freedom goodbye.  Obama and his ilk understand that in order to increase the effectiveness of their propaganda, the cultural level of the American people would have to be changed (Remember, "Hope and change.")  by bringing down the intelligence quotient with such tools as Common Core.  Lenin may have had success by bringing down the illiteracy rate whereas the Obama and the Democrats have done just the opposite (today, most kids entering college do not have the reading skills necessary for their grade level).  Its called, "The dumbing down of America."  ...and it appears your elected officials are very effective at it.


The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic... (The funeral will begin shortly. ~ Storm'n Norm'n)

The following from OpEd News
The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic
The United States shall guarantee to every
State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution
A republican form of government is one in which power resides in elected officials representing the citizens, and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison defined a republic as "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people . . . ."
On April 22, 2015, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade agreement that would override our republican form of government and hand judicial and legislative authority to a foreign three-person panel of corporate lawyers.
The secretive TPP is an agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries that affects 40% of global markets. Fast-track authority could now go to the full Senate for a vote as early as next week. Fast-track means Congress will be prohibited from amending the trade deal, which will be put to a simple up or down majority vote. Negotiating the TPP in secret and fast-tracking it through Congress is considered necessary to secure its passage, since if the public had time to review its onerous provisions, opposition would mount and defeat it.
Abdicating the Judicial Function to Corporate Lawyers
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. . . . "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. . . ."
And that, from what we now know of the TPP's secret provisions, will be its dire effect.
The most controversial provision of the TPP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) section, which strengthens existing ISDS procedures. ISDS first appeared in a bilateral trade agreement in 1959. According to The Economist, ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law to do things that hurt corporate profits -- such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing a nuclear catastrophe.
Arbitrators are paid $600-700 an hour, giving them little incentive to dismiss cases; and the secretive nature of the arbitration process and the lack of any requirement to consider precedent gives wide scope for creative judgments.
To date, the highest ISDS award has been for $2.3 billion to Occidental Oil Company against the government of Ecuador over its termination of an oil-concession contract, this although the termination was apparently legal. Still in arbitration is a demand by Vattenfall, a Swedish utility that operates two nuclear plants in Germany, for compensation of 3.7 billion ($4.7 billion) under the ISDS clause of a treaty on energy investments, after the German government decided to shut down its nuclear power industry following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.
Under the TPP, however, even larger judgments can be anticipated, since the sort of "investment" it protects includes not just "the commitment of capital or other resources" but "the expectation of gain or profit." That means the rights of corporations in other countries extend not just to their factories and other "capital" but to the profits they expect to receive there.
In an article posted by Yves Smith, Joe Firestone poses some interesting hypotheticals:
Under the TPP, could the US government be sued and be held liable if it decided to stop issuing Treasury debt and financed deficit spending in some other way (perhaps by quantitative easing or by issuing trillion dollar coins)? Why not, since some private companies would lose profits as a result?
Under the TPP or the TTIP (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under negotiation with the European Union), would the Federal Reserve be sued if it failed to bail out banks that were too big to fail?
Firestone notes that under the Netherlands-Czech trade agreement, the Czech Republic was sued in an investor-state dispute for failing to bail out an insolvent bank in which the complainant had an interest. The investor company was awarded $236 million in the dispute settlement. What might the damages be, asks Firestone, if the Fed decided to let the Bank of America fail, and a Saudi-based investment company decided to sue?
Abdicating the Legislative Function to Multinational Corporations
Just the threat of this sort of massive damage award could be enough to block prospective legislation. But the TPP goes further and takes on the legislative function directly, by forbidding specific forms of regulation.
Public Citizen observes that the TPP would provide big banks with a backdoor means of watering down efforts to re-regulate Wall Street, after deregulation triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression:
The TPP would forbid countries from banning particularly risky financial products, such as the toxic derivatives that led to the $183 billion government bailout of AIG. It would prohibit policies to prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail," and threaten the use of "firewalls" to prevent banks that keep our savings accounts from taking hedge-fund-style bets.
The TPP would also restrict capital controls, an essential policy tool to counter destabilizing flows of speculative money. . . . And the deal would prohibit taxes on Wall Street speculation, such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax that would generate billions of dollars' worth of revenue for social, health, or environmental causes.
Clauses on dispute settlement in earlier free trade agreements have been invoked to challenge efforts to regulate big business. The fossil fuel industry is seeking to overturn Quebec's ban on the ecologically destructive practice of fracking. Veolia, the French behemoth known for building a tram network to serve Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, is contesting increases in Egypt's minimum wage. The tobacco maker Philip Morris is suing against anti-smoking initiatives in Uruguay and Australia.
The TPP would empower not just foreign manufacturers but foreign financial firms to attack financial policies in foreign tribunals, demanding taxpayer compensation for regulations that they claim frustrate their expectations and inhibit their profits.
Preempting Government Sovereignty
What is the justification for this encroachment on the sovereign rights of government? Allegedly, ISDS is necessary in order to increase foreign investment. But as noted in The Economist, investors can protect themselves by purchasing political-risk insurance. Moreover, Brazil continues to receive sizable foreign investment despite its long-standing refusal to sign any treaty with an ISDS mechanism. Other countries are beginning to follow Brazil's lead.
In an April 22nd report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, gains from multilateral trade liberalization were shown to be very small, equal to only about 0.014% of consumption, or about $.43 per person per month. And that assumes that any benefits are distributed uniformly across the economic spectrum. In fact, transnational corporations get the bulk of the benefits, at the expense of most of the world's population.
Something else besides attracting investment money and encouraging foreign trade seems to be going on. The TPP would destroy our republican form of government under the rule of law, by elevating the rights of investors -- also called the rights of "capital" -- above the rights of the citizens.
That means that TPP is blatantly unconstitutional. But as Joe Firestone observes, neo-liberalism and corporate contributions seem to have blinded the deal's proponents so much that they cannot see they are selling out the sovereignty of the United States to foreign and multinational corporations.
For more information and to get involved, visit:

Even the left wing Democrats are suspicious...
The following from FOX News

Mass. Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking President Obama to make public classified information in the international trade deal that he’s asking Congress to ‘fast track’ -- the latest incident in which the populist, first-term senator appears critical of the president’s relationship with Wall Street and big business.
At issue is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known as the TPP -- a significant deal with 11 Pacific Rim nations that aims to create a free trade zone in the Asia-Pacific region.
A letter dated Saturday and co-signed by fellow Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, was written in response to Obama's suggestion that critics of the TPP, specifically Warren, were wrong about the trade deal and “dishonest” when they claim the TPP is a secret deal.
However, Warren and Brown argue in the letter that by deeming the draft text classified and from public view, the Obama administration has in fact made the deal secret.
“As a result of your Administration’s decision, it is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement,” the letter says.
Warren claims in the letter that corporate executives and lobbyists have had opportunities to not only read it, but to shape the terms, and calls for the American people to have the same ability.
“The American people should be allowed to weigh in on the facts of the TPP before Members of Congress are asked to voluntarily reduce our ability to amend, shape or block any trade deal,” the letter says.
“The press and the public should be allowed to examine the details that corporate executives and lobbyists have already been allowed to influence for years. Members of Congress should be able to discuss the agreement with our constituents and to participate in a robust public debate, instead of being muzzles by classification rules."
Warren and Brown also express concern about the Trade Promotion Authority bill being debated in Congress, which would renew the ability of Congress and the president to “fast-track” trade deals (that authority expired in 2007). The letter claims that the legislation "would grease the skids" for approval of additional trade agreements through the next two presidencies until 2021.
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Friday, April 24, 2015

COMMON will become self-evident for those who care about their children

I no longer have any children of my own attending any kind of school, so what would make me want to listen to a lecture one-hundred minutes and twenty-eight seconds in length that covers the so-called "Common Core" curriculum being forced upon the new breed of students.  (The main speaker at this event does not come on until 5:45 at the video counter, so if you want to cut out five minutes there is where you can begin.)   The reason I watched this video will become self-evident for those who care about their children's education...but I think more importantly, in the long term, the future of our country.  At the present time our country is in a downward spiral...and I'll leave it there for now.   Before we get into a tete-a-tete or group discussion as to the root cause of this problem (and it is a problem) suffice it to say the ruthless politicians we elect are to blame...the Democrats create the problem and the Republicans let them.  Solutions to the problem are hard to find and no one has come up with the right suggestions ('cept me! ...but that's another story).  Oh, you'll hear about all kinds of fixes (even this video offers some) but this thing has been going on for decades and you (we the people) did nothing...some would even call it a conspiracy theory.  Believe me, after you have listened intently to this lecture you'll come away with the knowledge that indeed, the conspiracy is real and not a theory.  ~  Norman E. Hooben
By the way...I have watched numerous videos regarding Common Core, this one is one of the best!
Plus, I've posted one here.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

See also:

America's Hell...a story worth repeating.

I once used a quote from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisted to describe the ignorant masses but I've grown to like David Horowitz's "ideological fairy dust" which seems to permeate in most of the left-wing's mindset.  It's three words seems to be more descriptive than  Huxley's:
"It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act. "The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective." ~ Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley, 1958
Now its that fairy-dusted brain that does not know he has been sprinkled that I'm appealing to to read Horowitz's commentary on the Obama White House...perhaps one can be cast free of the spell of mind-manipulation and learn to think for himself.  The story is fast approaching a year old and before it reaches the dust bins of history I present it here; it is truly worth repeating. ~ Norman E. Hooben

The Hell That is the Obama White House
Diary) |

Every sentient human being whose brain isn’t stuffed with ideological fairy dust can see that Obama is behind every major scandal of his administration from Benghazi to the I.R.S. disgrace. How can one know this? Because the culprits haven’t been fired. Moreover, if they are serial liars like Susan Rice, they’ve actually been promoted to posts where their loyalty to the criminal-in-chief can do America and its citizens even more damage, if that is possible.
A president faced with a scandal created by underlings behind his back would be naturally furious at their misbehavior, and want heads to roll. This didn’t happen in any of these scandals because their point of origin was the White House itself. Promoting the culprits is a way of keeping them quiet.
And what exactly is the I.R.S. scandal about — to take just one case? It’s a plan unprecedented in modern American politics to push the political system towards a one-party state by using the taxing authority of the government to cripple and destroy the political opposition. The administration’s campaign to promote voter fraud by opposing measures to stop it (and defaming them as “racist” is guided by the same intentions and desire.
And why shouldn’t Obama want to destroy the two-party system since he is also in utter contempt of the Constitutional framework, making law illegally, and defying an impotent Congress to stop him? Of course every radical, like Obama, hates the Constitutional framework because, as Madison explained in Federalist #10, it is designed to thwart “the wicked projects” of the left to redistribute income and destroy the free market.
The same desire to overwhelm and permanently suppress the opposition drives the war that Obama and the Democrats have conducted against America’s borders and therefore American sovereignty. Their plan is too flood the country with illegals of whatever stripe who will be grateful enough for the favor to win them elections and create a permanent majority in their favor. The immediate result of these efforts is that we have no secure southern border, and therefore no border; and therefore we have effectively invited criminals and terrorists to come across and do Americans harm.
Which brings us to the deepest level of Obama’s hell, which is his anti-American foreign policy. When Obama was re-elected in 2012, the very first thought I had was this: A lot of people are going to be dead because of this election. How disastrously right I was. Since their assault on George Bush and their sabotage of the war in Iraq, Obama and the Democrats have forged a power vacuum in Europe and even more dramatically in the Middle East, which nasty characters have predictably entered with ominous implications for the future security of all Americans.
Take one aspect of this epic default: Obama’s lack of response to the slaughter of Christians in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have been slaughtered and driven from their homes in Iraq – over half a million by some counts. This is the oldest Christian community in the world dating back to the time of Christ. What was Obama’s response to this atrocity until a group of Yazvidi along with the Christians were trapped on a mountain side, and politics dictated he had to make some gesture. His response was to do and say nothing. Silence. Even his statement announcing minimal action to save the Yazvidi and the Christians mentioned the Christians once in passing while devoting a paragraph to the obscure Yazvidi.
What this unfeeling and cold response to the slaughter of Christians tells us is that Obama is a pretend Christian just the way he is a pretend American. What he is instead is a world class liar. That is because his real agendas are anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish, and obviously and consistently pro America’s third world adversaries to whom he is always apologizing and whom he is always appeasing. Obama lies about his intentions and policies because he couldn’t survive politically if he told the truth,
The socialist plot against individual freedom called Obamacare was sold as a charitable attempt to cover the uninsured (which it doesn’t), to lower health insurance costs (which it doesn’t) and to allow patients to keep their doctor and their plan (which it doesn’t). What it actually does is to take away a major piece of the freedom that Americans once enjoyed – the freedom to choose their plan and their doctor, and not to have the government control their health care or have easy access to all their financial information.
This devious, deceitful, power hungry administration is just as James Woods described it. But it is also a mounting danger for all Americans. Thanks to his global retreat, the terrorists Obama falsely claims are “on the run” are in fact gathering their strength and their weapons of mass destruction until a day will come when they will cross our porous borders and show us what the years of perfidy not only by Obama but by the whole Democratic Party have wrought.

Hillary Clinton

Do you want a good laugh?
Check out the video at the bottom of this page.

Megyn Kelly lays out what you need to know about the controversy now plaguing the Clinton Foundation:
Posted by The Kelly File on Thursday, April 23, 2015

So soon, we are back in the thick of the old familiar Clinton slime. This morning it was the Russian uranium deal, and this afternoon, this: Hillary's Charities Suffer A "Geithner Moment", Will Refile 5 Years Of Taxes
Tomorrow it will be Bill hanging with crims and underage hookers in the Bahamas...never mind, that already was reported last week by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity. It's become clear, if it had not been already, that those $300-500,000 speeches were bribes and that their "charity" is a slush fund.

And, via the very lib NY Mag:
The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”
...The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.
Mark Halperin: Will the Old Clinton Playbook Work? Well, Wall St loves her so there's that. Who else does? I wonder. I suspect both the Bushes and the Clintons will be past history soon, if not already.

How would all of this go over if the Clintons were conservative Repubs?

Hillary Clinton? She sure is laughable!  (See video ↓)

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Russian Deal... (Hillary, "Trust me.")

Storm'n Norm'n

Source for the following Moe Lane with H-T to Doug Ross

Hillary Clinton and the Russian donors who then bought up American uranium production.

The first of many shoes has dropped in relation to the Clinton Foundation and its donors. This one is coming to us, courtesy of the New York Times: and it’s a “BOOM goes the dynamite” kind of situation. The keywords are “Clinton Foundation,” “Russians,” “donations,” and “uranium:”
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One [a company responsible for one-fifth of the uranium production in the United States] in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Let’s get this out of the way, because right now minions are gearing up to start throwing their bodies on this particular bonfire: yes, the New York Times got the tip on this from Peter Schweizer, author of the upcoming book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Said book promises to make for fascinating reading for most of my audience, but it should be understood that this story was not fed to the New York Times. This story is the result of the New York Times vetting particular details.
And the results are nicely problematic for Team Clinton. Basically, this story looks a good deal like the one that recently laid low Oregon Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber: money was given to a person/group affiliated with a politician, and oddly enough that politician made decisions that well-pleased the people giving the money. In Kitzhaber’s case the bagman was his fiancee: in Hillary Clinton’s case… well, ‘bagman’ is such a harsh word, is it not? Nonetheless, there is plenty of reason to be suspicious, particularly since there are now some questions about just how much the Clinton Foundation spends on actual charity.
And the most interesting part? Hillary Clinton apparently cannot provide exculpatory email evidence to the contrary. That’s the flip side to Team Clinton’s amusingly precise statement that nobody “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” All those emails got deleted. Which means that Hillary Clinton’s main defense is Trust me.
No, I don’t think that we’ll do that.
Moe Lane (crosspost)

Clinton-Russian Deal Timeline (Source ~  The New York Times)

September 2005
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
FebRuary 2007
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.
June 2008
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.
June 2009
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
June 2010
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.
June 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
October 2010
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
January 2013
Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Dear Michelle Obama, I enjoy learning about the great choices the USA has made. And then there was your husband's election.

Source for the following:Crossed-posted from The Weekly Standard (H-T Doug Ross Journal @ Director Blue )
‘A Concerned 8-Year-Old Citizen’ Writes Brutal Letter to Michelle Obama

A friend sends along an email attachment—a handwritten letter by his 8-year-old son, Peter. It’s addressed to First Lady Michelle Obama. “It all started because he saw something about school lunches [and] how ketchup is bad for you, and that Michelle Obama wants to limit the amount of ketchup” in schools, my friend explained. When the boy’s mother reminded him he attends a private school, making the ketchup rationing a nonissue, “He said something about wanting to ‘give a voice to the voiceless.’”

But ketchup is actually the least of the boy’s concerns, as he then continues onto foreign policy, the crisis in the Middle East, and the need for boots on the ground. (“He also disipionted millons of Americans by not bombing Syria.”) In addition, Peter recommends that the president urge the United Nations to send peacekeepers to Ukraine.

On the lighter side, the departure of Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau seems to be noted, as Peter points out, “I also think your husband needs to work on his speeches.”

“We found it on his desk,” said his father. “He started it in October, but did not finish it until a couple weeks ago. He said he was ‘too angry’ to go on.” (Peter does, however, conclude his letter by asking the first lady, “Is the White House comfortable?”)

You can read the entire letter below.

On another note...
If you do not know about Agenda 21, you better hone up on it... Our days are numbered!

Monday, April 20, 2015

LA Public School Teaching Kids "Allah is the One True God"

Obama and the Democrat Party are 100% responsible for this indoctrination of our school children.