Tampon Tim forcing teachers to abide by "horribly disgusting" "crazy" race standard says lawmaker

Minnesota state Sen. Mark Koran (R), is speaking out against a teacher requirement that he says amounts to forcing educators to take an oppressor "vow."

Public school teachers in Gov. Tim Walz’s Minnesota are required to abide by a "horribly disgusting" and "crazy" race standard that forces them to assess how their "biases, perceptions and academic training" perpetuate oppression, a state lawmaker said.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, Republican state Sen. Mark Koran pointed to the requirement as further evidence of how education in Minnesota has "eroded."

According to Minnesota’s guidebook on "Standards of Effective Practice," public school teachers hoping to be licensed by the state must demonstrate that they have assessed "how their biases, perceptions and academic training may affect their teaching practice and perpetuate oppressive systems."

The requirement, which Minnesota classifies as one of its "professional responsibilities," further demands teachers use "tools to mitigate their own behavior to disrupt oppressive systems."

Koran said this requirement effectively amounts to forcing teachers to take a "vow of being an oppressor," which he called "just crazy" and "horribly detrimental."

He ripped into Walz over the changes, saying, "He's tied to the radicals, he's tied to the teachers’ unions, all the public unions of a really wild, radical agenda."

According to Koran, Minnesota has recently redone all of its teaching licensing standards "under the guise of racism."Under the new standards, he explained, teachers "have to embed in their curriculum, in their pedagogy, the understanding of the ‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressor’ environment and overtly include that in their curricula."

"It's horribly disgusting," he said. "It is racism. It is instilling the systemic racism that doesn't exist today."Another professional responsibility required by Minnesota is that teachers understand "how prejudice, discrimination, and racism operate at the interpersonal, intergroup and institutional levels."

Teachers are required to demonstrate an understanding of "the historical foundations of education in Minnesota, including law, policies, and practices, that have and continue to create inequitable opportunities, experiences, and outcomes for learners."

The guidebook continues that teachers must highlight how the education system has created inequitable opportunities for "Indigenous students and students historically denied access, underserved, or underrepresented on the basis of race, class, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, language, socioeconomic status, or country of origin." In other words, it tells us to acknowledge that the white man sucks.

Further, under the section on student learning, the guidebook requires teachers to demonstrate their understanding of "the diverse impacts of individual and systemic trauma" on learning, including "racism, and micro and macro aggressions."Teachers are required to know how to support students using "culturally responsive strategies and resources to address these impacts."

Koran asserted that this "wild political ideology" is going to drive out more and more teachers from teaching in public schools.

"It's an offensive statement to assume that somebody's an oppressor based on who's the disfavored race of the week," he said. "We just can't have that."

Koran said that these race-based changes have been made as academic outcomes in Minnesota have simultaneously been plummeting.

"They've lowered the standards under the guise of equity," he said. "Today in Minnesota, half of our children can't read or write or do math at grade level, 50 percent, and they have high school diplomas."

"Minnesota is bragging about the graduation rates; we hit the highest ever, but fewer people have an education and are set up with a foundation to be successful," he lamented.

This comes as Walz and the state of Minnesota are facing increased national scrutiny over one of the largest fraud scandals in U.S. history. Koran said that if there is one message he could communicate to Minnesotans, it is that "the governor matters."

"We’ve got to get Minnesota back on the right track," he said. "The governor sets the tone, sets the direction, and sets the goals for which we need to work to achieve."

Look, only in Tim Walz's fever-dream version of Minnesota do they decide the best way to fix education is to make teachers swear allegiance to the Church of Oppressor Guilt. This isn't teacher training. It's a re-education camp with lesson plans. Koran is out here dropping truth bombs while the radicals turn classrooms into struggle sessions where "bias" is whatever the latest DEI commissar says it is.

They've got educators confessing their sins against the "oppressed" and "disrupting systems" like they're in some cult initiation. Meanwhile, half the kids can't read or do basic math but hey, at least the graduation rates look good on paper. Classic Minnesota: fake the numbers, push the ideology, and watch the whole thing collapse in slow motion. Walz and his union buddies own this mess, and voters are starting to notice.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

CNN's Stelter has 'sexist' interview with Jenna Ellis: Trump wants apology

Compromised News Network (CNN) host Brian "The Bald-headed Stooge" Stelter went on a "sexist and demeaning" attack in an interview Sunday with Jenna Ellis, the Trump's senior legal adviser. The administration is seeking an apology from the anti-Trump network with the chance of that forthcoming about the same as seeing a unicorn eating a banana.

Stelter began to discuss President Trump's use of the term "fake news media," and evidently took it personally for good reason. Ellis praised Trump's courage to go up against the anti-Trump press which got Stelter to clutch his pearls.

Stelter responded, “You understand that someday you’re going to regret this, right?” he said. “Someday you’re going to regret this when your kids and your grandkids look back at this time.” 

Such great "reporting" from such a great "journalist."

Ellis, clearly intellectually superior to Stelter by leaps and bounds, and is a constitutional law attorney, fired back, “Oh, now you’re going with personal attacks, that’s when you know you lost the debate, Brian.”

Stelter, a "Just for Men" dropout and frequent Twitter user, later tweeted that his “Twitter mentions are still exploding” along with his digestive tract, and retweeted David Brody, the chief political analyst, who said, “Did you see @brianstelter getting totally destroyed by @jennaellisesq today on @CNN? It was thorough domination. She called him an activist, not a journalist.”

Ellis said that Stelter has an agenda, which is "anti-Trump," and said that makes him an activist, not a journalist.

In a feeble attempt to defend himself and unclutch his pearls, the Bald-headed Stooge and host of "Reliable Sources" [an obvious oxymoron] retweeted a political reporter at CNN who said that Stelter made the [sexist] comment after Ellis lied.

"Note that Ellis was lying about CNN’s poll," Eric Bradner, a leftist political reporter, tweeted. "The 14-pt Biden lead is among registered voters."

CNN recently reported that the Trump campaign demanded the [so-called] news outlet retract a poll that showed him trailing by 14 points among registered voters. CNN said it stood by the poll.

Ms. Ellis and Michael Glassner, the chief operating officer for the campaign, told the network in a statement earlier this week that, "It's a stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression, stifle momentum and enthusiasm for the President, and present a false view generally of the actual support across America for the President."

Ellis said on Sunday, “The only reason CNN published this because it’s junk science." She said, “No pollster in the world would stand behind this as a legitimate poll, according to industry standards.”

“That’s a normal polling procedure,” Stelter falsely claimed, as the numbers and timing of the poll was skewed to favor Joe Biden.

The poll was among a sample of 1,259 respondents and conducted via phone from June 2-5, 2020, according to CNN. Fifty-five percent of responders said they would vote for Biden, compared to 41 percent for Trump. What the poll did not mention was that only 25 percent of respondents were Republicans and conducted prior to Trump's positive economic numbers that were released on Friday. And, of the 1,259 adults, 1,125 were actually registered to vote.

Ellis later tweeted that no other poll shows such "false numbers" as CNN's.

Pardo wrote that she has had enough of these “liberal activists masquerading as journalists” who constantly insult conservative women “for having the audacity to think for ourselves and go against the fake news narrative they are pushing that day.”

Remember, if you don't vote for Biden, you ain't black, he said. 

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

CNN's Stelter, a non-essential liberal arts dropout doesn't understand federalism

Comedy News Network's Brian Stelter, the man whose head could light up a room, was blasted this weekend for a tweet he posted that displayed his lack of basic understanding of how the United States works.

As required by all CNN non-essential "reporters," President Trump must be attacked for anything and everything. In doing so, Stelter showed his ignorance in grand fashion.

The ignoramus tweeted:

"Admin officials 'say the White House has made a deliberate political calculation that it will better serve Trump’s interest to put the onus on governors — rather than the federal government — to figure out how to move ahead,' Let that quote sink in..." 

If you let it sink in, you see that Stelter is calling for the office of the president to power-grab from the governors of every state and make the federal government all powerful.

The ignorant host of "Reliable Sources," a show pretending to be a fact checker for other media sources, shared his thoughts as a quote from unidentified, anonymous, make-believe "admin officials," but was immediately corrected on social media.

"Yes, the U.S. Constitution is a hundreds-year-long plot to help Trump win re-election. Excellent take," said legitimate journalist Mollie Hemingway. "Also, it's not a 'quote' but an unsupported assertion based on reporters' dubious and unverifiable interpretation of what they claim anon sources told them."

"Sources say" should be a warning whenever you hear a so-called journalist or reporter use the sentence starter that the "source" is the person writing the piece. The sources to which Stelter quoted to "admin officials" was actually a quote from the "journalists" from the Washington Post article.

Stelter's tweet linked to an article from the leftist canary cage liner Washington Post which was also critical of Trump's handling of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic but chided what they perceived as the president's lack of a plan, not his yielding power to state and local government.

Trump's top advisers have focused mostly on plans to reopen the economy by the end of April, but they haven't explained how they would do it without triggering a second spike in a coronavirus outbreak. President Trump has been particularly focused on creating a second coronavirus task force aimed at combating negative economic ramifications of the virus.

The WaPo article did not criticize Trump for having local legislation and governors to choose their own regulations and do their own risk assessment in local communities. You know, allowing the philosophy of federalism to determine locally how unique situations need to be dealt with rather than having federal government power grabs.

But Twitter users didn't allow Stelter to get away with his bloviating. Some of the responses can be seen in a screen shot [below].

Sometimes you just gotta love Twitter.  Here's another:

And this:

It should concern even people who used to watch CNN before catching a flight. To think that CNN is a reliable source of unbiased reporting is laughable.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.






Tweet

NY Times bans reporters from far-Left TV

The New York Times has finally decided to try harder at being "journalistic" and have banned its "reporters" from several TV shows that are obviously partisan: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, and Don Lemon of CNN [aka: the Compromised News Network]. 

MSNBC, whose ratings are lower than whale poop, is upset about the new policy, according to anonymous sources at Vanity Fair. This was discovered after a Times reporter cancelled a scheduled appearance on Rachel Maddow's show. Her producer was informed that New York Times reporters are asked not to appear on partisan shows to discuss politics. The ban supposedly extends to Comrade O’Donnell and "The Lemon," as well as Fox news hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity [where the chances of them appearing in the first place is as likely as spotting Bigfoot dancing with Richard Simmons.]

The Times explained to Vanity Fair of a policy in their ethics handbook that says reporters should “avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.” New York Times reporters have appeared on Maddow’s show for years, but leadership at the former newspaper finally woke up to the fact that some of these shows have gone off the rails in recent months.

Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet and others at the canary cage liner don’t want their so-called "unbiased" reporters to be associated with the increasingly obvious bias of people like Maddow.  “Their view is that, intentionally or not, it affiliates the Times reporter with a bias,” an anonymous source said.

It’s not clear exactly where The Times is drawing the line for shows that are and are not permissible to bloviate on. Some of their reporters, including hard-left-leaning White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, are paid contributors at the networks and have the same blatant bias as the hosts of the shows they appear on. This does not bode well for The Times.

The guidelines are “inconsistent, incoherent and poorly conceived,” an unnamed source at one of the networks told Vanity Fair, which suggests the guidelines were written by the staff at the former newspaper.

Please consider following Brain Flushings and don't be shy about visiting the ads on these pages. Follow me on Parler.com, my handle is @Heyrobo, or on Twitter--my handle there is: @RobHoey 
Thanks.

Tweet

A psychological analysis of Trump supporters uncovers amazing findings on Hillary-Bernie supporters

While psychologists and neuroscientists often provide conflicting or overlapping analyses and results when studying the human mind, there are a few who apparently hit the nail right in the noggin.

That'd be me.

After reading fake analysis by leftists pretending to delineate the psychodynamics of the Trump voter, labeling us with Authoritarian Personality Syndrome for example, as well as five other universal attributes, I decided the same can be done with the Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton glass ceiling voter.

The fake study cited by Bobby Azarian of Raw Story, discusses a
review paper  by Thomas Pettigrew in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 

Pettigrew is a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, a school noted for its May Day protest this year and leftist teachings. 

Pettigrew has been blaming authoritarianism for much of the problems with racism since the 1960s. He means well but he's obviously tunnel-visioned.

So let's look at what the study cited and decided that Trump voters share, and let's see if we can make sense of it for Hillary voters too.

1. Authoritarian Personality Syndrome:

"Authoritarianism refers to the advocacy or enforcement of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom, and is commonly associated with a lack of concern for the opinions or needs of others," the study says, pointing its middle finger at Trump voters.

When conservatives such as Ben Shapiro and others have tried to speak at college campuses, there have been riots that have kept them from speaking. The leftist rioters apparently displayed their indifference or lack of concern for the personal freedom (as per our First Amendment) and the opinions and needs of conservative speakers.

Not one of those protesters was a Trump voter.

And speaking of the syndrome itself the author says that those who display it display aggression toward out-group members, submissiveness to authority, resistance to new experiences, and a rigid hierarchical view of society. Although the study agrees that liberals can suffer from it, the syndrome is more common among right-wing folks.

Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want to see an even bigger authority in the form of bigger government. In fact, they want it to be so big, with them at the top, that it provides government leaders with enormous power over the people, those who the government would treat as children needing all-encompassing assistance for most of their needs.

2. Social dominance orientation (SDO):

Although it is distinct from authoritarian personality syndrome, it is related to it because Pettigrew believes everything sociological is related to it.

People with SDO have a preference for the societal hierarchy of groups, specifically with a structure in which the high-status groups (White) have dominance over the low-status groups. Those with SDO are typically dominant, tough-minded, and driven by self-interest.

In Communist terms SDO refers to something resembling the Collective. 

In terms of reality, the people who tend to support Trump are not the high-status groups at all--they're the coal miners in West Virginia, unemployed folks seeking work, conservatives who may not have voted for Trump in the primaries, but couldn't stand socialist Sanders or elitist Clinton.

True, some Trump supporters are white supremacists, but that doesn't make Trump a white supremacist. 

If it were true that those who voted for you defined who you are, then that would make Hillary Clinton an idiot, because anyone who would vote for someone without a real platform other than her vagina, and who has clearly violated the Espionage Act due to her arrogant use of a personal email server,  and who allowed four Americans to die in Benghazi and blamed a video for the attack, is an idiot.

3. Prejudice:

The study says that "It would be grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that every one of Trump's supporters have prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities, but it would be equally inaccurate to say that many do not. It is a well-known fact that the Republican Party, going at least as far back to Richard Nixon's "southern strategy," used strategies that appealed to bigotry, such as lacing speeches with "dog whistles"--code words that signaled prejudice toward minorities that were designed to be heard by racists but no one else."

This has been a claim made by leftists when nothing else works. The whole idea of "dog whistles" is just another way of saying "Republican use 'trigger words' that upset me." 

If a leftist says only a certain group can hear the "dog whistle," and he or she hears it, then how is that possible unless the leftist is defining what the word supposedly means?

Azarian claims Trump's dog whistles are "sometimes shockingly direct." He says that "There's no denying that he [Trump] routinely appeals to bigoted supporters when he calls Muslims "dangerous: and Mexican immigrants 'rapists' and 'murderers,' often in a blanketed fashion.

Except he never actually did. He was very clear about who in each group he was referring to--not all Muslims and not all Mexicans. Azarian dishonestly twisted Trump's words.

You don't have to be a bigot to be concerned about Islamic terrorism. It's simply a fact of life (or death, depending if the cup's half full). Trump even went on to explain that he wasn't referring to all Mexicans, "just the bad ones."

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, actually called Trump supporters 'deplorables' and that's really the definition of prejudice (pre-judging people you haven't met).

4. Intergroup contact:

Refers to contact with members of groups that are outside one's own, which is shown to reduce prejudice. "There is growing evidence that Trump's white supporters have experienced significantly less contact with minorities than other Americans," Azarian asserts.

What 'growing evidence'? 

How can any study know that without actually interviewing most of Trump's supporters and ask them if they work with or hang out with people of different races. And then take a 'Google-look' at Chris Matthews' son's wedding group photo and check out the absence of anyone other than caucasian people.

In fact, it's the Democratic Party that uses identity politics, that has resulted in a disunited country and this study is a good example of it.

5. Relative deprivation:

This one made me chuckle.

It refers to the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes they are entitled (such as the presidency). Nothing more need be said on this topic.

Basically, what this fake study shows is that results in political-sociological studies are nearly impossible to undertake without experimenter bias. And when studies are performed in obviously left-leaning academic institutions, this is even more problematic.

Everything the study applied to Trump supporters can just as easily be applied in spades to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters.

It all depends upon who the authors of the study voted for.


Tweet

Evancho's got the Trump bump--now go tell the media

She got the Trump bump. 

Sweet Sixteen Jackie Evancho is performing at the presidential inauguration on January 20th. Since the announcement was made by the Trump team, the opera singer's Christmas album soared to Number One on the Billboard Classical Chart and her record sales doubled.

But some media outlets don't see the connection to Trump. They responded to Trump's tweet that Evancho's sales "skyrocketed," the Associated Press believe the boost was due to the fact that "holiday albums tend to sell particularly well during the holidays."

Billboard credited the singer's NBC "America's Got Talent Holiday Spectacular" performance as the main reason her sales went through the roof. Donald Trump had nothing to do with it, they seem to want you to believe.

"Of course, Trump had impact," Dan Gainor, vice president of business andculture at the Media Research Center, told Fox411. "The media wouldn't give credit to Trump if he personally cured cancer, discovered alien life and fed all the world's hungry."

Scott Pinsker, a branding and communication expert said that no matter what Trump does, the media has a bias against him. "Of course there's an intense media bias against Donald Trump," Pinsker said, "and of course the mainstream media will be more hostile to Trump than they ever were to President Obama. Even Trump's most innocuous announcement for boosting her sales is going to be twisted and contorted to fit the media's anti-Trump narrative."

However, even Evancho's publicist agreed that after Trump announced that she would be performing, she was inundated with record offers.

"Three record labels were suddenly courting her," Kim Jakwerth told the New York Post. "The contract could be announced next week."

The AP reported that Evancho sold 7,206 albums the week of December 15th, the day after the announcement was made that she would be singing the National Anthem. The following week, she sold 13,788 albums and the next 11,096 ending December 29th.

Coincidence or Trump bump?













Tweet

Holder at the Bus Stop, Obama Stands Behind Him

Holder may go--but certainly, he should go. It seems pretty clear that he lied to congress. He also may be behind the Gibson Guitar Company heavy-handed, office bust-in (my term). He didn't know about the potential prosecution of James Rosen; he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, and he knows nothing about everything as the head of the Department of Justice. At the very least, he should be fired for his gross incompetence. But more than this, he should be prosecuted, for his low-life evil abuse of the Constitution of the United States of America. It's as simple as that.

The Final Debate

It's almost time for the third and final debate with Mitt and Hussein, Truth and Consequences.  I believe I know who the media is going to say won the debate, but I believe in spite of that, Mitt will win.  Bob Scheiffer will be the moderator, and if you know anything about Bob, you know that his photo is featured in the leftist handbook.  I imagine he'll do a Candy Crowley and try to sway the vote to Hussein.

Foreign policy is the subject and when it comes to foreign policy, Obama`s policies are clear:  show the world the USA is not special; do nothing real to support Israel, our only ally in the Middle East; bow as deeply to the Saudi king; allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons; continue to support foreign oil producing countries while refusing to drill for oil at home, in spite of the fact that the USA has more oil than Biden has gaffes.

I suspect that Obama will attack Romney for attacking him on Libya--Obama does a good impression of self-righteous indignation and he'll have to show it tonight.  According to Chris Wallace, Obama will be in attack mode and Mitt will play it closer to the vest.

We shall see.  Let the games begin, and let the media spin their bs analyses.

My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

Jihad Joe Soft Cover       

click here for ebook version   

Tweet

Unequivocal Proof that Fox News Sucks | NewsReal Blog

Unequivocal Proof that Fox News Sucks | NewsReal Blog

We can ask ourselves why is it that the mainstream media (MSM) is so leftist. I believe the answer to that has to do with the notion that we, as individuals, need to have a cause that we believe in--kind of like religion or politics. Liberalism appears to be a philosophy held by people who care about people. But I have a different take on the matter; I believe liberalism, (which I confess, I was a card carrying member of back in the day), is a political philosophy whose basic tenets believe that people are weak, need to be held up by government, and need to be treated equally with even those who actually work for a living. Note that CNN carried the royal wedding as their main story and Fox carried the tornadoes in the south.

Liberals are the first to yell "racist" when any dialog is voiced about opinions that run counter to what they believe. If it isn't racist, then it's another buzzword used to disarm a counter argument like calling conservatives "stupid" and we should go back from where we came. (Tell that to George Soros and liberals will jump on your case faster than you can say "Obama is a socialist").

I long for the day when we can have an unbiased news media, when it will really be news and not opinions; when we can be treated as thinking adults rather than spoon fed children whose ideas more often come from Marxist college professors and the MSM.

The link above is a blog by Diane Shrader, who also writes for NewsReal, a blog site headed by David Horowitz. The article is spot on, I feel, about the current situation in the media today and why the best place to get the news is from a blog--no, from several blogs and from several opinions. I trust that by doing so, you can form an informed opinion and perhaps see through the smoke of liberal thinking.

Peace.