Randi Weingarten loses her s*** during speech on Trump's 'fascism'

When someone who wants to force you to send your kids to a school of their choosing or closes schools down for an overblown flu, and then calls you the fascist, you can take that with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila. This is exactly what American Federation of Teachers head Randi Weingarten is doing in regard to former President Donald Trump.

Weingarten went nuts, jumping up and down like a jumping bean as she screamed and warned the country about Trump bringing violence and fascism to the country. It was as if someone got her balls in an uproar and she nearly put a hole in the stage.

Weingarten, a member of the LGBTQI+123and-a-zing-zing-zing community, has a long history of left of left political balderdash. She went on at length about US politics and even quoted from the  "Suffs" musical produced by Hillary Clinton, specifically referencing the lyrics "progress is possible, not guaranteed" from the song "Keep Marching."

"The November elections will determine which path we take as a nation. Progress is possible, but so is the eradication of the rights and freedoms we hold dear," Weingarten said, in that self-serving way progressives have. "It is seldom a dramatic event or attack that lets fascism in the door. The violence comes later, after they are voted in."

Then she began to scream banshee-style, looking forward to when history books show "that we the people united, mobilized, and voted down this existential threat to democracy and freedom!" She gave no examples of how her alarming message was true. 

Her next act was to bounce like a SuperBall on steroids shouting, "That we continued the march for progress! That we laid the foundation for a better future! And that we sought to create a more perfect union! Progress is possible! Keep marching!"

Earlier in the speech, she encouraged her audience to imagine a future that included a wide variety of initiatives ranging from the freedom to kill the unborn to the freedom to "breathe."

"Imagine a country where hate has no harbor, and freedom rings! The freedom to vote! To live, to breathe! The freedom to marry! The freedom for families to make reproductive choices! The freedom to read!" she shouted. "The freedom to teach and the freedom to join a union!"

Weingarten is married to a woman, so what's her beef about freedom to marry?

She claimed that she prayed that Trump was changed by his brush with death at the Pennsylvania rally, but argued he is still a selfish and evil man, although she doesn't really know him intimately. 

"Does anyone in this room doubt that if Donald Trump is given a choice between what is good for him and what is good for working families, which he would choose?" she asked with a hand dramatically to her ear as liberals yelled, "No!" from the crowd of trained seals. 

She also slammed Betsy DeVos, who served as the 11th U.S. secretary of education under Trump, Chris Rufo, who helped popularize the push against Critical Race Theory, and school choice advocate Corey A DeAngelis, who slammed her display as an "unhinged lunatic."

Randi Weingarten is the most self-serving person in public life, after Kamala Harris.

Kids, it's called projection.

Tweet

Harvard's Claudine Gay has a boatload of even more plagiarism charges uncovered

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the embattled woke president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, has "received a complaint outlining over 40 allegations of plagiarism" against her on Tuesday,  and noted a letter that was sent to Harvard's research integrity officer, Stacey Springs, outlining the claims.

"The document paints a picture of a pattern of misconduct more extensive than has been previously reported and puts the Harvard Corporation, the university's governing body—which said it initiated an ‘independent review’ of Gay's scholarship and issued a statement of support for her leadership—back in the spotlight," Free Beacon reporter Aaron Sibarium wrote.

The outlet reported that it "independently verified the veracity of the new allegations against Gay, as well as the identity of the complainant," who is a professor at another university who requested "anonymity for fear of retaliation." And retaliation is more than probable, it's almost guaranteed because that's how the woke work, [say that ten times].

The Harvard Corporation, the woke school's highest governing body, said it would stand with Gay, even with the backlash over her woke, anti-Semitic comments. and plagiarism allegations. but even they admitted that a probe found "instances of inadequate citation" in her academic writings.

Margolis & Cox: Townhall.com

Gay's doctoral dissertation and other papers published from 1993 to 2017 "paraphrased or quoted nearly 20 authors, all of whom were not Gay—including two of her colleagues in Harvard University’s department of government—without proper attribution," according to an analysis by the investigative news site.

The Free Beacon worked with academic scholars to analyze "29 potential cases of plagiarism," and it didn't look good for her. The general consensus was that "Doctor" Gay had violated the school's own policies regarding plagiarism by just changing a word here or there, and not providing credit to the actual authors of the pieces from which she allegedly plagiarized.

Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute and journalist Chris Brunet also published instances of what they pointed out that were instances of probable plagiarism of her Ph.D. dissertation that "violate Harvard’s own stated policies on academic integrity."

Fox News Digital reported "According to the Free Beacon, new allegations included 'dozens of additional cases in which Gay quoted or paraphrased authors without proper attribution' that were submitted to Harvard's research integrity officer," and adding that '[T]hey range from missing quotation marks around a few phrases or sentences to entire paragraphs lifted verbatim,' Sibarium wrote. 'The full list of examples spans seven of Gay's publications—two more than previously reported—which comprise almost half of her scholarly output.'"

The question many of us ask is whether Gay will be held to Harvard's standards that others must live up to?

Tweet

Is Harvard's Claudine Gay a plagiarist or an anti-Semite or both?

Claudine Gay defending Jew harassment

An anti-white racist, an anti-Semite and a plagiarist walk into a bar. The bartender, who happens to be a former socialist congresswoman from New York, smiles and says, "What are you having Doctor Gay?"

Harvard President Claudine "Depending on the Context" Gay is finally coming out. No, not as a gay woman, but as an alleged plagiarist, and definitely as an anti-Semite who also hates white people, especially conservative white men. 

Gay is the first black woman to preside over Harvard, a former prestigious university that has gone the way of the left and continues in its long-standing history of anti-Semitism. Gay has often been accused of bullying colleagues, overseeing a racist admissions program and suppressing free speech. Who among us can forget how she refused to answer Rep. Elise Stefanik's (R-NY) question at the Congressional Hearing as to whether calling for the genocide of the Jews was considered by Harvard to be harassment. Instead she claimed that it depended on the context. She was asked the same question 17 times and came up with the same nonsense.

Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute of Policy Research obtained exclusive documentation that appears to indicate another problem with Gay. Specifically, she appears to have plagiarized sections of her Ph.D. dissertation, a violation of Harvard's standards, and virtually every college, university and every publishing house in the nation, mostly because it's illegal and grounds for a lawsuit.

Shades of Joe Biden!

Gay's dissertation, “Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Policies,” was published in 1997, as part of her doctorate in political science from Harvard. The reason she has gotten away with the alleged plagiarism for so long is that people tend not to read those things because they're tediously boring.

Gay's paper deals with white-black political representation and racial attitudes, much like the tripe that Ihram X. Kendi writes and refuses to debate anyone on.

Chris Rufo

As evaluated under Harvard's own plagiarism policy, the paper contains at least three problematic patterns of usage and citation.

First, the affirmative-action-now-school-president lifted an entire paragraph almost verbatim from Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam’s paper, “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” She never cited with author and passed it off as her own language.

Here is the original, from Bobo and Gilliam:

Using 1987 national sample survey data . . . the results show that blacks in high-black-empowerment areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either blacks living in low-empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the results show that empowerment influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation to politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.

And here is the language from Gay’s so called work:

Using 1987 survey data, Bobo and Gilliam found that African-Americans in “high black-empowerment” areas—as indicated by control of the mayor’s office—are more active than either African-Americans in low empowerment areas or their white counterparts of comparable socioeconomic status. Empowerment, they conclude, influences black participation by contributing to a more trusting and efficacious orientation towards politics and by greatly increasing black attentiveness to political affairs.

It's obvious that Gay didn't think too deeply in how to interpret what the authors were saying, using her own words and thoughts. Yes, she referenced Bobo and Gilliam, but uses their language with few exceptions.

But this isn't a "one-off." Gay continues repeating the same violations throughout the dissertation along with passages from Susan Howell, Deborah Fagan, and Richard Shingles, which again was practically copied and pasted.

Gay also apparently lifted work by Carol Swain at least twice, as Rufo points out: "In one passage, summarizing the distinction between 'descriptive representation' and 'substantive representation,' she copies the phrasing and language nearly verbatim from Swain’s book Black Faces, Black Interests, without providing a citation of any kind."

 Swain writes:

Pitkin distinguishes between “descriptive representation,” the statistical correspondence of the demographic characteristics … and more “substantive representation,” the correspondence between representatives’ goals and those of their constituents.

Gay’s version is basically the same, with tiny modifications to the diction and punctuation:

Social scientists have concentrated . . . between descriptive representation (the statistical correspondence of demographic characteristics) and substantive representation (the correspondence of legislative goals and priorities).

Later in the paper, Rufo explains,  Gay uses identical language to Swain, without adding quotation marks, as required. 

Rufo then writes:

Third, Gay composes an entire appendix in the dissertation directly taken from Gary King’s book, A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. While she cites King’s book—in fact, King was her dissertation advisor—Gay does not explicitly acknowledge that Appendix B is entirely grounded in King’s concepts, instead passing it off as her own original work. 

Throughout the appendix, Gay takes entire phrases and sentences directly from King’s book, without any citations or quotation marks. In total, Gay borrows material from King in at least half a dozen paragraphs—all in violation of Harvard’s standard on academic integrity.

Rufo et al., then call on Harvard's Board of Overseers to conduct "a full investigation into Claudine Gay's academic integrity."

But they have already given her the green light to support the green headscarf with all that funny Arabic writing on it.

Tweet

McAuliffe lies about CRT "never been" taught in Virginia schools

Parents in Virginia, and indeed, in other parts of the country, are angry and are pushing back against Critical Race Theory (CRT) being taught to their children in public schools. But Virginia's Democratic Gubernatorial candidate, Terry McAuliffe, repeatedly claimed that CRT is not taught in Virginia's public schools even though it is being taught in Virginia's public schools where McAuliffe says it isn't. That he clearly lies doesn't look good for McAuliffe's chances for winning the governor's race, but he should get at least 25% of the vote since it seems as if one quarter of registered humans are oppositional to reality and common sense.

Just look at the Virginia Department of Education website and their multiple references to CRT. By multiple, I mean 47 references. But don't take my word for it--click on the link and check out what they referenced. McAuliffe's multiple claims that CRT isn't being taught in the schools is worse than hogwash--it's Marxist and racist propaganda.

Comrade McAuliffe made an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday and lied to host Chuck Todd that his GOP opponent, Glenn Youngkin, is lyingabout CRT-influenced curriculum in public schools.

“What’s Glenn Youngkin’s education plan? He wants to ban Critical Race Theory. Well, let me explain to you, it’s never been in Virginia,” McAuliffe said through the fork in his tongue.

“People trust me on education, but it’s at the forefront here in Virginia as it now is in others. You see what’s happening in Georgia and Florida because they’re talking about this Critical Race Theory,” McAuliffe bloviated. “And as I said before, and I’ll say it again, it’s never been taught in Virginia. And I really hate it, because it’s a racist dog whistle. And all Glenn Youngkin has done in this campaign is run down Virginia, run down our education system, run down our economy.”

Whenever Democrats use the term 'dog whistle' they are lying.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

“And when you think of this right now on Critical Race Theory, Chuck, it’s not taught so all you’re doing is pitting parents against parents, parents against teachers, and they’re using children as political pawns,” McAuliffe said, in spite of it being taught and also on the Virginia Department of Education website.

The Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo, a man who is doing yeoman's work on dismantling CRT,  

highlighted several documents on the aforementioned website featuring CRT. One dated back to when McAuliffe was governor from 2014 to 2018. [In Virginia, one cannot run for two consecutive terms as governor but can run again for a second term at a later date.]

In 2015, the state Department of Education featured a slideshow promoting CRT in response to racial disparities in public school discipline.

To reduce school suspensions of Black students in Virginia, Brenda Townsend Walker, of the University of Southern Florida, pushed for school administrators to incorporate CRT into their disciplinary process and encouraged teachers to "[e]brace Critical Race Theory} and "[e]ngage in race-conscious teaching and learning."

In other words, be a racist and favor one group of students over another and also allow the favored group special advantages over the other group.

Let's go Brandon!

Tweet

Being Black and being an anti-White racist is now the accepted norm of the abnormal left

Lamont Hill and his quizzical "say what" face

Racist activist, race hustler and host of Black News Tonight Marc Lamont Hill asked Chris Rufo, the outspoken critic of the nonfactual divisive, anti-American, anti-White garbage known as "critical race theory," why school children should not be taught that "whiteness" is "all negative," and then pressed Rufo to name something he likes about "being white."

“What do you like about being white?” Hill asked Rufo, after stating that “whiteness” is a “marker of power.” 

Rufo rejected the premise, noting that “whiteness” is “such an amorphous term, it’s like a census term.”

“You surely recognize that the world sees you as white, the world reads you as white,” Hill said, sounding like a true racist and noting that he likes the “culture norms” and “tradition” and other aspects of “being black.”

“If you’re saying whiteness is being constructed as negative and it shouldn’t be, name something positive that you like about being white,” Hill asked again.

Rufo again rejected the premise and pointed out progressive literature that’s being used in public schools which ascribes things like timeliness, objectivity, and rationality to being white. “These are very strange things to be ascribed to a racial identity,” he explained. “My view is that, actually, these things should be ascribed to every individual human being regardless of whatever racial category we impose on them.”

Lamont Hill was still unsatisfied. “That doesn’t answer the question,” he told Rufo, accusing him of setting up “straw men” to avoid the issue.

“If whiteness isn’t a negative thing, and there’s something that you actually — and whiteness actually shouldn’t be constructed as all negative, name something positive, that you believe is positive, about being white,” Lamont Hill told Rufo.

“Again,” Rufo refuted, “I don’t buy into the framework, that the world can be reduced into these metaphysical categories of whiteness and blackness. I think that’s wrong — I think we should look at people as individuals, I think we should celebrate different people’s accomplishments.”

“You mentioned [author Noel] Ignatiev,” Rufo continued. “Ignatiev says the goal is to ‘abolish the white race.’ In any other context, this would be interpreted as a near-genocidal slur. I don’t buy into it. The reason I’m not going to answer your question, is I reject that categorization. I think of myself as an individual human being with my own capabilities, and I would hope that we could both judge each other as individuals and come to common values on that basis.”

Lamont Hill closed the segment by saying schools “need” critical race theory so we can “expose whiteness,” listing off alleged systemic disadvantages black people in America are born into.

Now this is racist. All you need to do is interchange the races. Hill plays word games and Rufo is smart enough to not buy into it. 

“What do you like about being White?” I asked this question to anti- Critical Race Theory advocate Christopher Rufo. He stated that Whiteness was always only painted as negative, so I asked him to offer something different. Peep his response: pic.twitter.com/H5IkAyv2Co

— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) May 26, 2021

I replied to Hill:

Hill is a bright guy for a racist so I suspect he will have a snappy answer to these types of questions. But when you attack a group's immutable characteristics, you really are nothing more than a racist. And you might recall how black people were saying that blacks cannot be racist because of all the things they've been through. That was just their attempt at shutting you up.

I'll say it again: Marc Lamont Hill is a racist, like Al Sharpton is a racist, Louis Farrakhan, Robert Byrd, George Wallace and David Duke. The only difference is melanin levels--even their political party affiliations are the same--all Democrats.

Is she going to do some kinda DNA test to assure she upholds this rule? https://t.co/9d7rXZTnCV

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 19, 2021

“It is unclear when such a practice was enacted and if it only applies to local reporters, particularly after her MSNBC appearance with Stephanie Ruhle on Monday,” Fox News reported. “During her MSNBC interview, Lightfoot told Ruhle she would ‘encourage’ Chicago residents to continue wearing masks despite the new CDC guidance allowing those with the coronavirus vaccine to go without them.”

“I know for me personally, I’m going to continue to wear a mask in public and I’m going to encourage others to do so,” Lightfoot told Ruhle. “We’ve got to make sure that people are continuing to follow the public health guidance that has gotten us this far, and masks, I think, are a big and important part of that.”

Lightfoot said on Tuesday afternoon that her decision to continue to encourage people to wear masks was not based on distrust of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“But I think their guidance last week regarding masks has people confused…We need clarification,” Lightfoot said. “We still have a long way to go to hit the critical mass (of vaccinations) or herd immunity. I don’t want people to have false confidence.”

“To say, ‘If you’re vaccinated, you don’t have to wear a mask,’ that’s great. But what about all of the other people who are out there that aren’t vaccinated?” Lightfoot added. “There’s no way to know that. So I think for the time being, most people are gonna continue to wear masks outside of their homes.”

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Determines Who Interviews Her Based On Race, Local Reporters Claim

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet