Nat'l Teachers Union head having a cow over fear DeSantis will trigger flight to private schools

Randi Weingarten heads the American Federation of Teachers and is having a panic attack stemming from policies that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) have implemented will encourage parents to remove their kids from leftism-teaching public schools, and transfer them to private schools instead. If this happens in large enough numbers, then there is hope for the nation.

If you are not suffering from Alzheimer's or other memory disorder, you will recall how the teachers unions across the country had schools locked down due to COVID-19, even after the vaccine was available. It seemed that if Weingarten and teachers in general had their way, remote learning would have lasted until the children were old enough to marry and settle down. Teachers did not want to go back to the classroom and were among the most cowardly among us.

On Thursday, Weingarten referencing an article in The New Republic, a far-left rag, that attacked DeSantis for his policies. The sleepy-face union prez tweeted: 

“This isn’t just about masks or about Governor DeSantis’ political aspirations. It’s about the complete destabilization of public education so that parents will choose private schools.” https://t.co/o9FkLV7vNW

— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten)

But, like Bernie Sanders says about higher taxes, private schools is a good thing. Teachers in private schools can be terminated for poor performance. They are also not beholden to a union and therefore don't have to teach the mantra of critical race theory. Private schools also don't have to abide by public school mandates and can have a sane approach to masking requirements.

In July, Weingarten hysterically attacked Gov. DeSantis, tweeting that “Millions of Floridians are going to die for Ron DeSantis’ ignorance and he’s choosing to profit from it,” after DeSantis’ campaign team offered T-shirts saying, “Don’t Fauci My Florida.” 

* * *

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.

* * *

Unlike the left's profiting from apparel they sell on their websites like AOC, for example. It isn't the same for them.

In March, DeSantis unveiled a $106 million civics education initiative, developed under the advisement of Hillsdale College, which directs a line of charter schools, including one run by the education commissioner’s wife. The initiative emphasizes “the influence of the Ten Commandments.” It also bans “Marxist” critical race theory. 

In June, the state Board of Education banned any instruction that defines American history “as something other than the creation of a new nation based largely on universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

DeSantis Press Secretary Christina Pushaw blasted Weingarten in a statement to The Daily Wire, saying, “Is Randi Weingarten’s ridiculous claim that selling a koozie will lead to ‘millions’ of Floridians dying an example of Critical Math Theory? It’s terrifying that the fate of any child’s education is in the hands of someone so incredibly ignorant.”

The Daily Wire reported in May 2021 about the "destabilizing" of public schools and placed the blame squarely on the AFT and Weingarten:

The American Federation of Teachers, led by Randi Weingarten, appears to have lobbied the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to keep schools shuttered amid the coronavirus pandemic and “even suggested language for the federal agency’s school-reopening guidance released in February,” according to a Saturday report from the New York Post, based on emails between the AFT and CDC.

“The powerful teachers union’s full-court press preceded the federal agency putting the brakes on a full re-opening of in-person classrooms, emails between top CDC, AFT, and White House officials show,” the Post reported Saturday.

Weingarten’s tweet engendered responses like this one from Karol Markowicz:

I will say again: absolutely no one destabilized public education last year more than Randi Weingarten. School choice movement owes her a big thank you. We noticed that public schools controlled by her stayed closed while the private schools in same areas opened. We saw. https://t.co/5LPuCt054v

— Karol Markowicz (@karol) October 1, 2021

So please, Randi Weingarten, don't give the American public your crap about DeSantis and your fear about losing students to a better educational experience.

Tweet

Kamala Harris wants to take away workers' rights to not join unions

Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., indicated on Saturday that if [G-d forbid] she became president, she would use the "bully pulpit" to fight "right-to-work" laws, describing them a** backwards as an attack on workers' rights.

"The barriers to organized labor being able to organize and strike are something that have grown over a period of time," the 2020 presidential hopeful said while speaking at the National Forum on Wages and Working People.

At the event, Harris emphasized the bully pulpit and executive authority to fight for workers' rights and specifically mentioned right-to-work laws.

"It has to be about, for example, banning right-to-work laws," she said.

The event, organized by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Center for American Progress, sought to "provide an opportunity for thought leaders to go beyond talking points and share concrete plans to rebalance our economy and democracy," according to its website.

The SEIU has historically supported Democratic candidates and spent $28 million in support of Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. In 2012, the organization reported spending almost $70 million for campaign donations, TV ads, and get-out-the-vote efforts and they're a major supporter of Obamacare and increased minimum wage laws.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) is very much like SEIU in its support of leftist policies. But this organization has a very questionable reputation.

For instance, in October 2016, Intercept reported that the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba praised "a CAP report that advocates for continued cooperation with Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE."

And in January this year, two CAP staff members were terminated for leaking an email exchange that suggested the UAE has an improper influence over CAP. This may be true, based on CAP's use of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric. They were criticized by several Jewish organizations over this issue.

Bloggers associated with CAP published several posts using phrases such as "apartheid" and "Israel-firsters", causing NGP Monitor, the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League to label them anti-Israel and call on CAP to disassociate themselves from these statements. Officials at CAP said the “inappropriate” language came only in personal tweets—not on CAP's website or its ThinkProgress blog. The Tweets were deleted, and the authors apologized.

Others, however, criticized CAP for what they considered censorship of reasonable comments critical of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and other policies.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Communist-VT) another 2020 presidential contender, first said in April that he would work to ban right-to-work laws, which exist in 26 states.

Trump has praised the Janus decision, describing it as a "Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!"

Basically, the right to work allows people to not join a union if they so choose. This seems to be a person's right to not have to pay union dues just to be allowed to work a particular job. Of course, the argument goes that why should the worker who isn't paying union dues, be allowed to profit from the work of the union when he or she isn't paying for the benefits?

During his 2016 campaign, Trump supported right-to-work legislation.

"We've had great support from [union] workers, the people that work, the real workers, but I love the right to work," he said. "I like it better because it is lower. It is better for the people," he added somewhat confusingly. [Lower? What does that mean?]


Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.




Tweet

Another woman for Cabinet post--liberals confused

Washington D.C. -- President-elect Donald J. Trump has chosen Betsy DeVos, 58, to become education secretary. She is a charter school advocate and GOP donor from Michigan.

Liberals tend to dislike charter schools, not because they more often score higher academically than public schools in the inner cities, but because they are not unionized and under-performing teachers are held accountable. Yet while they were all ready to jump on Trump's picks, they're at a "Betsy loss" for words, believing that he would select an all white male Cabinet.

DeVos is Trump's second woman to fill a spot in his Cabinet. Earlier Wednesday he named SC governor Nikki Haley as our US ambassador to the United Nations, a position currently held by uber leftist Semantha Power.

Both DeVos and Haley will need Senate confirmation.

Trump describes DeVos as "a brilliant and passionate education advocate," and is known for supporting charter schools and vouchers. Liberals hate the idea of school choice for families and would rather keep kids from urban ghettos in their ghetto schools where there are significantly lower expectations.

The one issue that DeVos stands for is the Common Core standards that Trump rallied against in his campaign, but with Trump as POTUS, it's a non-issue.

Ms. DeVos is a former Michigan Republican Party chairwoman. Her husband, Dick, is an heir to the Amway fortune and a former company president. He could make you rich if you bought into the company.



Tweet

Right to be forced to pay dues

The right to work law is unconstitutional according to a leftist circuit court judge in Madison, Wisconsin because labor unions have a "property right" to the wages of employees.  Right-to-work proponents will appeal the socialist's decision.

Wisconsin became the 25th right-to-work state where people could not be forced to pay union dues. 

The problem was made public when workers argued the compulsory dues were going to a union that financially supported a political candidate they did not want to support. Sounds reasonable--kind of like "taxation without representation."

"We are extremely disappointed that the Dane County Circuit Court struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, but we are confident the law will be upheld on appeal," state AG Brad Schimel said.

The bill went into effect last March and three labor unions sued the state, Gov. Walker, and Schimel. The unions claimed the law requires unions to provide a service--workplace "representation" to nonunion workers--without being compensated. 

The Honorable C. William Foust agreed. 

But state and right-to-work advocates argue that "neither the federal nor state law requires a union or other entity to become an exclusive bargaining representative."

But Foust says that argument is "disingenuous," which is exactly the union's position.

So now liberals are giving each other "high fives" over the Foust decision, but I suspect the appeal process will see the right-to-work law upheld.

Isn't it great that liberals want to ensure worker's rights to forcibly pay union dues is upheld? 

What idiots.



Tweet

They're Going Nuts in Lansing

They're going nuts in Lansing.  They knocked down a Koch Brothers tent with people inside, cut the ropes, then cut the canvas as they swore at the victims of their violence who were still inside the tent.

They're beating drums in protest like children throwing a tantrum.  But it looks like the Freedom to Work Bill is going to pass.  If Michigan becomes a Right to Work state, which it appears will happen, workers will have the right to join or not join a union.  But Democrats, like Doug Geiss, say "there will be blood."  Even Obama stuttered his approval of the demonstrations and the socialist values of the demonstrators.

Now Obama can talk about something else other than the fiscal cliff.  Maybe that isn't so important anymore, like Benghazi, Solyndra, or Fast and Furious.  Unkions are important to him--maybe because they gave so much money to his campaign.  You would think Obama would be in President Mode rather than Campaign Mode, but he's a much better campaigner than he is president. He is a much better socialist than he is a capitalist.

The Great Uniter Obama is and always was, the Great Divider.

Tweet

Hey Hey Ho Ho

Hey hey, ho ho, union choice has got to go!  

That isn't exactly the chant that's being voiced in Lansing, Michigan, but that's what it's all about.  A right to work state is unfair because it gives individuals the right to join a union or not to join a union.  That's just not fair to those people who choose to work without a net--the protection of a union that ensures that work gets done at the level of the poorest worker, the slowest on the assembly line, the guy who takes the most sick days.  Everyone should pay union dues whether they like it or not--freedom of choice is un-American--wait--maybe I'm wrong.

One of the protestards said that everyone has the right to work, but they don't have the right to work for lower wages.  Why not?  Isn't that free market?  And now that Obama won a second term (and hopefully a final term), he jumped on the pro-union bandwagon.  Surprised?

But Dumbocrats say right to work is a political ploy.  Interesting in light of the fact that unions have contributed to Obama's re-election overwhelmingly while Republican union members are forced to pay dues that go to re-elect a socialist.  Now that, my friends, is un-American.

In the states that have passed the Freedom to Work Law, there is a significantly higher rate of employment.  The only people who really benefit from unions in today's world, are union leaders whose salaries are enormously disproportionate to the actual workers they represent, and people like Obama whose re-election was due to unions and the media.

Tweet

Woodstock on the Stock Exchange

Your Taxes at Work

What's the meaning behind the protest in the Occupy Wall Street protest? Some say it's Tea Party envy and I don't disagree, but I think it's even more than that. I believe it's a way a group of people try to capture some sort of meaning in their sorry lives. Their message is incoherent, for the most part, and it's a "You, my government, owe me a job."  "I hate you, you damn rich banks."  "I hate the rich on Wall Street who have all the money, and I have nothing but loans from them, and it's unfair." 

I believe that, at a deeper level, these protestors are a bunch of unwashed hippy wannabees who are trying to recapture a primal Woodstock moment that their parents experienced. These libiots want to make history, and they even say that in their mindless chanting. They say that "this is what democracy looks like," but if they actually get what they're asking for, democracy will go down the tubes and George Soros will do the flushing of the toilet.

 Not An Irish Spring

Many of these people are socialists, and they have the right to be lazy and stupid socialists. But some of these protestors are undoubtedly communists, hate America, and love idiots like Michael Moore, a guy who made all his money as a capitalist denouncing capitalism. And the protestors don't even get it. Some of them don't get it so much, they don't even know that they actually are communists and socialists. They just want the wealthy to share their money with them. But even before that message went out, the mob assembled without a definition of what the heck they were protesting about in the first place. Usually protests work the opposite way around in America--people are upset about the way things are running, and the last straw is the protest--here is was the protest, then the discussion of why they were protesting. Sounds very insinsoros to me.

The media compares these people to the tea party but the major differences that I see between the two groups is the tea party people actually shower, have jobs, and know what it is they're upset about. When the tea party protests, nobody gets arrested, there is no violence, no traces of anti-Semitism, nor anti-America, just a real concern over the way the government is getting involved in things they aren't qualified to get involved with, and generally tend to screw up when they do.


Obama and some unions are supporting these protestors. It's just another way our president can divide us and hopefully win next year. The unions, with their Hoffaesque mentality support the unwashed because they will support anyone who goes against the managers of wealth, in spite of the fact that the union leaders possess so much of it themselves. 


So next time you're in the Wall Street area and see a mob, as opposed to a group of protestors, hold your head high as you hold your nose, and keep walking on your way to work.

Tweet

Some Seriously Taxing Issues & Michael Moore's Tutu

 It seems that government is involved in everything nowadays--from your child's education, to the food that you aren't allowed to eat, even if you want to. We pay taxes and expect services from the government, but how much is too much and where should we draw the line?

One thing that must be provided to Americans by the federal government is the infrastructure--roads, bridges, tunnels, and highways, and these must be maintained by the government with our tax money. I believe the government has the right to collect tolls for bridges and roads, but the people should have a say in the amount that we pay. It's ludicrous to think that paying $14.00 for the Verrazano Bridge toll is reasonable. We were promised that once a structure such as this bridge was paid for, the toll would be removed. With the threat of Islamic terrorism, I concede that we need to continue to pay for security for these structures, but to think the government can rake us over the coals for money that goes beyond these needs is unfair and probably illegal. And the worst thing of all is that the infrastructure of our country is crumbling and throwing more money into it hasn't helped.


Secondly, the government is responsible for our defense as a nation. I know President Obama doesn't take that too seriously, and even W. said that Islam is a religion of peace, but most Americans know otherwise. Our military should not be cut and we need to continue to keep military defense as a priority, rather than cutting back in this area. If I had my way, I'd cut back on $16.00 muffins and $8.00 coffee for our government officials who, like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, spend our tax dollars for their personal pleasures. I have written about this in a previous blog here.

Grand Jete

Thirdly, well, that's difficult to say. There isn't much more the government should be involved with because they have the Midas touch when it comes to running things, except instead of turning things into gold, they turn it into human waste. They do education like Michael Moore does an arabesque or grand jete. Also, we all know that the government does not create jobs, although they do provide them, as can be seen in the US Postal Service. In fact, there are so many jobs in the postal service that we are paying people not to work because there isn't enough work for them to do. Millions of taxpayer dollars is wasted at USPS every year and that's our money. Of course, we can blame it on government but the real culprit here is the union, which negotiated to protect jobs that don't need to exist. We need to remember too that government jobs do not generate more jobs, and unions do not generate more jobs--they're designed to maximize their workers salaries and benefits, often at a huge expense to management.

Michael Moore?

School teachers are also protected by unions and it practically takes an act of God to fire a teacher, even if he or she commits a crime involving their students. Since liberals like to see everything as equal, like the US is morally equivalent to Saudi Arabia, for example, teachers also have an equal situation with USPS because there is a significant number of them getting paid to sit in a "Quiet Room" and not teach. I wonder if the walls in the Quiet Room are padded to protect them from themselves.


So it should be clear that the purpose of the government in a free society is to take care of its citizens. It is not the role of government to take away their money to share with those who have less, for whatever reasons. Fact: Republicans are more generous than Democrats when giving to charities. Democrats only pretend to be the morally superior. 

My final brain flushing for today is: if we trained people who receive unemployment benefits, rather than to simply give them two years of sitting on their duffs, we would do more for them in the long term. Giving them more time to find a job has only extended the amount of time they tend to be out of work. We have spent our grand children's money on frivolous entitlements for too long and we need to become responsible again for their sake and the sake of our country. Just saying.


Tweet

Fast Food and Furious

I never thought it would happen in America--a country where kids used to stand in class and recite the Pledge of Allegiance--you know, the "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," pledge. Where the government respected the rights of the individual and did not treat its citizens as children. Where we were responsible for our own choices: we could smoke cigarettes and get cancer, and all cigarette companies were required to do was inform us of the risk. Where we could have a McFat Burger with fries, an apple pie made with palm oil for dessert, and a slurpee to wash it all down. It was our choice. We could even have public Christmas displays in our shopping malls.

Now we are no longer allowed to use the name of God in our pledge, and many schools are not even allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. So to whom do we give our allegiance? I think the answer is obvious: to the rules and regulations of government.

The dietary dysfunction of our First Lady has now become her obsession with us, and we must obey her rules. McDonald's burgers are out and what she deems as health food is in. There are school districts in the USA where school cafeterias are no longer allowed to serve certain foods because it is making the kids obese. Some of these privately owned cafeterias had to close up business, and the kids now go to area pizza parlors for lunch. Now there is talk about restricting fast food restaurants from operating near schools.

What about the rights of parents? Don't they have the right to make decisions about what their kids eat, and let's face it, there are times when a parent doesn't have the time and/or energy to cook a lean cuisine meal for junior, and fast food fits the bill for those occasions. So the government has become the Nanny State, where the responsiblities of child-rearing have been removed from the parents and placed in the hands of our lawmakers. How wonderful is that? How Big Brother-ish are we becoming? 

Unions protecting the least competent

When government begins to dictate the minutia of our lives, they can more easily dictate the more important aspects of them too. A government that does this is rightly called a dictatorship. And this is what liberals seem to want because they believe the masses do not have the ability to care for themselves. It reminds me of unions who take care of incompetent workers by making it almost impossible for management to fire them--think teacher's unions, for example.


I believe our next election is going to be a referendum not only on Obama and his socialist policies, but on the Nanny State in general and how people are fed up being lied to and shown feigned caring for by BIG GOVERNMENT.


Liberals hate the wealthy in this country because they demonstrate success in spite of government interference in their lives.

Tweet

The Future King

Mayday!  Mayday!

The purpose of government is to serve the people, not the other way around. When government gets too big, it does what it does best--it screws things up. Think about it; when has the government ever managed something that private industry did not, or could not manage better? Consider airport security. How secure are we? The honest answer is that we are just as secure today as we were on September 11, 2001. Our government has done nothing of substance to protect us because it is more concerned with protecting its image. We scan babies, nuns, and little old ladies but avoid "racially profiling" the group of individuals known to perpetrate terrorist activities--to do so would offend them and the entire Muslim world. Offending them might lead to violence, might cause them to kill us and our children. So the government avoids offending them and pretends to be doing something positive to protect us. Tell that to  the people aboard the plane with the Yemeni passenger who tried to get into the cockpit as he yelled "Allahu Akbar" (Allah is the greatest). The only way to be protected is to protect ourselves. We know now that we have no choice but to act on our own behalf if terrorists strike--they take no prisoners and are willing to die to get their virgins in paradise. We know if we're on a plane and someone shouts "Allahu Akbar!" we better do something quick, or we're going down.

The leftist media has softened the meaning of Allahu Akbar to mean "god is good." It doesn't mean that; what it means is that Allah, not your god, is the greatest. Is it possible to believe Islamophobia exists and that it's irrational to be wary and afraid of a religion that claims to love death more than we love life? Is it irrational to be afraid of a religion whose scripture clearly says that infidels should be slaughtered? We feel guilty when we question the anti-Semitic/anti-Christian aspects of the Koran and some Muslim group, like CAIR, tells us that we're Islamophobic and we should be ashamed of ourselves. And we do feel shame--now that's irrational.

So is government getting too big and the President too powerful? Absolutely. 

Consider the Boeing Corporation, which had been home-based in Seattle, Washington for many years. They were unionized and over time had to withstand a number of crippling strikes and labor disputes. The company branched out, went to Chicago where they employed a huge number of unionized people, which was fine with the Democrats just as long as the company had to work with the union. Well, Boeing kept having more strikes and problems with labor and decided to open a plant in South Carolina, a state that didn't have mandatory unionization. But the Obama administration doesn't like that at all and wants to close down the plant, which would a job loss of over a thousand people and force the company to locate in a unionized state. Obama wants control over private industry and is deciding where they can locate--does this sound like a free country or more like a dictatorship?  

Obama has disregarded the Constitution, America's most noble document, and is calling for changes in our laws that would take away our freedoms. Our freedom of speech would be compromised with the "Hate Speech" bill. Who's to decide what is hate speech? The answer is obvious: the people in power.  They will also compromise freedom of the press by controlling the Internet.  Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and maintain a militia is, excuse the expression, under the gun, and he  is dividing and conquering us as a nation with his apologist views on Islam. 

Obama said that he doesn't see the USA as anything more special than the European nations. An American president saying we are not special? How Obamaesqe. We are special--we are the greatest nation on earth because we are truly free. We have had and will continue to have problems, and we will solve them. Like all nations, we are comprised of individuals and that means we have flaws, but there is nothing greater than our Constitution--it is a wonderful document that was brilliantly conceived by our founding fathers. I believe Obama has a dangerous, hidden agenda, and it involves his socialist thinking and his quest for more power.  If he is re-elected in 2012 (heaven forbid), I predict he will seek a third term, like Michael "Not-Building-a-Mosque-at-Ground-Zero-is-Un-American"  Bloomberg did as Mayor of New York City.   Of course, Obama would much prefer to be crowned king.