Sunday, July 31, 2022

More False Victimization: "Monkeypox Afflicts the LGBT Community"

 What kind of pseudo-journalism is this?

Homosexuals engage in rampant, unremitting promiscuity. For this reason, there is syndemic venereal disease outbreaks among these populations.

Monkey pox did not target homosexuals on its own, as though it wanted to pick on them.

Homosexual conduct, from anal sex to rimming to rampant promiscuity have caused the relentless spread of that disease.

Dear gay people: once again, stop playing victim, and stop victimizing yourself.

Living in the Libs' Heads Rent-Free, Part Four (Hundred?): Kelly Stuart, aka Groomer Granny Spider Karen

Kelly Stuart, aka Spider Karen, aka Granny Groomer

I love my haters.

Kelly Stuart of El Segundo, CA has a long history of defaming, shaming, blaming, and naming common-sense residents, parents, Christians, conservatives, constitutionalists, anyone who wants to do what is right for children and adults alike.

She is decidedly anti-immigrant because she attacks immigrants who love America, who want to secure America's border, and who want to ensure a lawful passage of entry for anyone who wants to become an American.

Worse yet, however, she pushes the LGBT agenda, grooming kids and adults alike to fall into all sorts of perversions. She is a Granny Groomer.

And I live in her head rent free. Kind of creepy, but if that means she is panicking because her hateful games are getting exposed, then so be it.

Check out her latest tweets screaming for "help":

She doesn't understand that I do so much more for MassResistance, first of all. I am not merely in charge of the California chapter. I have been working with pro-family activists all over the country, all over the world. Her Karen crankiness goes further: As usual, she can't help but report the truth about many of the people I have exposed on this blog and in other writings, too. Indeed, any adult who thinks it's OK to push LGBT anything on children or force it into the public square is a groomer, a pervert, and a predator. Spider Karen falls into the category perfectly, or im-perfectly. It's not slander when it's the truth, and as you can see, the truth triggers her bigly.

 But her Schaper Derangement goes further: She actually admits that she is ugly! She is clearly paying attention to what I write about her.

She also admits that she is weaponizing hatred against others.

If it really didn't matter what I said or wrote or posted about her, she would not have posted anything. Now this is how you Live in the Libs' Heads Rent Free! 

 PLEASE remember to report Spider Karen, er Sky Spider, er Kelly Stuart's Twitter account:

LGBT Granny Groomer Kelly Stuart Panics! (Report Her Twitter Feed!)

Kelly Stuart, aka Spider Karen, aka Granny Groomer, is really panicking now!

She doesn't like the fact that people are exposing her abusive hate.

Now she is trying to supress the truth about the LGBT agenda, because she wants hurting people to be groomed and abused.

This is really shameful stuff. Check out her latest tweet:

Telling the truth is not inciting violence, except if you are a perverted liar and abuser like Kelly Stuart.

Please report her hateful, grooming, anti-child, anti-family, pro-perversion Twitter Feed ASAP! 

Here's more information about her: Click here

Here's the link to her Twitter feed:


By the way, below is the full post that she was trying to suppress, because she wants to normalize abuse and trauma against childern and adults, because Groomers Gonna Groom:


For a long time, I have commented that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful behaviors and destructive ideologies which prop them up and foist them onto others.

Now is the time to confront the men and women who insist on calling themselves allies of the so-called LGBT community.

And for the the record, even openly gay activist Douglas Murray has admitted that there is no such thing as the "LGBT Community":

So, I need to ask all of you so-called LGBT Allies, why do you hate people who struggle with homosexuality and transgenderism?

Why do you want to normalize behaviors that are not normal, that are borne out of trauma, neglect, abuse, and molestation?

Tell me: if you saw someone on the street who was homeless because of drug addiction, would you give that person more drugs? Would you give that person more potent controlled substances?

If you saw someone on the street, homeless because of mental illness or because they ended up down on their luck, or they were fleeing domestic abuse, would you simply give them a jacket and hope that their life would go well on the street? Of course not! You would want to help these individuals get off the street and get back on their feet!

So, the next question comes up: why are you enabling people who have sexual desire for the same sex, or who think that they should be a sex different from the one they were born with?

Check out these testimonies from homosexuals at a gay bar:

Born Gay Hoax from highblur on Vimeo.

Every single man in the video above acknowledges that they were not "born that way." Why would you enable them to stay in bondage to a lie?

I cannot tell you how many stories I have heard from people who are actively homosexual or who used to be, that they suffered unparalleled abuse as children. Why would you want to normalize trauma? Why would you want to make it easier for people who harmed others to get away with their abuse, by celebrating the consequences of those crimes?

In short, why do you hate gay people? Why do you hate people in bondage to same-sex temptations and sex dysphoria? Why are you so hateful?

Saturday, July 30, 2022

George's Story, or Why Homosexuals Are Victims

"I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin and I do believe for some people it’s natural."

I received this recent retort from an activist here in the United States. This person agrees with me on most of the issues that I have been fighting, whether it's illegal immigration, parental rights, opposition to health and safety mandates.

But I find on this one issue that I face frequent pushback. It's unfortunate, but I cannot hold any one individual in contempt or disdain because they do not agree with me. What is needed now more than ever is intellectual activism, i.e. to make the case in the most direct way possible to individuals so that they understand that these behaviors are inherently harmful, destructive, and that the normalization of these behaviors harms society in general, i.e. it's not enough to ignore it because "two consenting adults do something in private."

Why is it that people fall into homosexuality? Are they born that way? I have shared in multiple posts that the science and the research do not bear out the truth of this assertion.

Story after story confirms that people who engage in homosexuality had one (or more) of the following experiences, many times in childhood:

1. They were confused
2. Abused
3. Harmed
4. Neglected
5. Molested

I want to share one case in point: George Takei of Star Trek fame.

In 1966, George Takei, then 29, made TV history as an Asian-American actor in a leading role on a TV series, playing Lt. Hikaru Sulu on Star Trek. In October, Takei made history again by telling Los Angeles LGBT magazine Frontiers that he’s gay, in an interview about the East West Players stage production of Equus, in which he stars as psychiatrist Martin Dysart (through December 4).

You and your partner of 18 years, Brad Altman, have been out locally for years. Why did you come out now in the press?

I’ve been out for a long time—all my friends know; my partner, Brad, comes to fund-raising dinners with me. We’re recognized together [as donors to Japanese-American causes]. So we’ve been out in that respect in the Japanese-American community as well. I think it was more the political climate [that convinced me to speak to be out in the press at this time]. Society has been changing. Today gay teens are now feature stories in Time magazine—that generation thinks being gay is just a part of society. The world has changed dramatically. In my teenage days that was the most inconceivable thing. Because of the changes that are happening I see the potential for significant change—[the potential] that I might be able to contribute to the gay community as I have to the Japanese-American community and to the civil rights movement. Because of the changing public and political climate I think we need to get the numbers, and I can play a part in trying to bring some rationality to our society.

George Takei was politically active in many respects before his "coming out" about his sexual preferences. He had run for LA City Council in the 1970s, and before that he was invested in civil rights causes, specifically for reparations to Japanese-Americans deprived of their liberty and property during World War II.

Notice that he cloaks his sexual desires in the language of civil rights. Notice also that he positions himself as a champion for children.

However, how did George Takei become gay? We don't get information about his so-called sexual awakening until much later, during an interview on the Howard Stern show in 2006 (discretion advised):


Here's a transcript of the most damning parts of George Takei's testimony:

Howard Stern: George, where did you go to summer camp?

George Takei: Lake Arrowhead, in Southern California.

HS: How old were you at the time?

GT: I was 13 ... I was very young, and he was an older teenager, a camp counselor. He was about 18 or 19, and he was experienced. He was the counselor in my cabin.

Ponder these facts, no matter how glibly Takei is sharing them. He had his first sexual experience with an adult male. He was a minor! 

HS: He could tell you were a gay man. Was it evident at 13?

GT: No, no, no it wasn't.

HS: Were you share at the point that you were gay?

GT: No, I was not sure.

HS: How did he seduce you?

GT: Well, he started touching me. 

Here's the remainder of the key parts of the interview ...

Howard Stern: How were you alone? It’s summer camp.

George Takei: We were in the cabin.

Stern: And where were the other boys?

Takei: They were off hiking or something.

Stern: Do you think subconsciously you stayed behind because you wanted to be alone with him [the 19-year-old-camp counselor]?

Takei: No, there was some kind of reason why I had to be there.

Howard Stern had a guest host, Robin Quivers, and interjected questions, too:

Stern: And he sat down and he touched you… Were you molested in a sense, because you were 13?

Takei: No, no. Cause I was kind of, you know—well, I thought he was pretty attractive.

Quivers: And you wanted to know why you felt this way.

Takei: Yes.

Quivers: Now wait a moment. He starts touching you how?

Stern: I don’t know if I need to hear all this.

Quivers: Does he put a hand on your knee? Or does he put his arm around your shoulder?

Takei: He puts his arm around my shoulders.

Stern: Oh yeah.

Takei: Then he started, you know, touching the private parts.

Robin Quivers: Ahh! Was he gazing into your eyes the whole time? Was he saying anything?

Takei: Oh, he was telling me about, you know, how life works.

Stern: And what did he do, did he perform oral sex on you?

Takei: It was a hand job.

Quivers: Was there kissing?

Takei: Oh, sure!

Stern: Who wants a hand job without kissing?

It may be disturbing to listen to George Takei make jokes, make light about his first molestation experience, but the truth must be told, and there should be no immediate condemation imposed on him for harm done to him as a child.

Takei may have stated that it was not molestation, but the truth is that yes, indeed, George Takei was molested by a camp counselor. This is horrific abuse that he endured as a kid, and this trauma set the stage for his homosexual inclinations throughout his life.

Some may counter that such an incident could not have cause this trauma, but I have spoken with many victims of child molestation, and they do attest and confirm that such harrowing, harmful experiences leave a life-long impact. No one has to be cowed or bowed down by these terrible circumstances (no one has to be a forever-victim), but these acts of molestation are indeed vile and must be confronted.

Remember also that Ryan Sorba discovered during his impromptu interviews with homosexuals at a San Diego, California gay bar that every one of them had been victimized in a similar way as child. (Click here).

When people confront or shame me because I make a big deal about taking on and ending the LGBT agenda, I become more resolute in speaking out without reservation or evasion. These behaviors, these unhealthy inclinations are a result of serious trauma, abuse, and confusion. These behaviors and the larger agenda behind them should not be normalized, let alone celebrated or promoted.

George's story should serve as a stern warning (no pun intended) that homosexuality is not natural, but the result of unnatural actions, abuses, or harms perpetrated against someone, and it's time for us to take our opposition to this agenda seriously--for the sake of the homosexuals themselves as well as children generally and public will and health at large.

The Building Trades Executive Director is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Chris Hannan

In the latest issue of "Building Trades News," Executive Secretary Chris Hannan used his monthly  column to denounce the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

However, the first part of his column shows the importance of fighting for life:

In California, the Building Trade, "the Construction Department of the AFL-CIO," has been standing up for workers' rights for more than 100 years.

It seems really strange that private sector unions consider abortion a "worker's right."

The ability to be a member of a union has empowered us to maintain this voice and our place in the middle class. Our country stands for freedom, including freedom to have differences of opinion, religious, and every possible difference imaginable.

Except, it seems, when it comes to defending the rights of the unborn. What really bothers me about this line of reasoning is that discussion is an abstraction. Yes, people can and should be able to discuss differences of opinion and make their points plainly heard without suffering consequences. However, when we are talking about human lives, the issue goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Life is a natural right, and natural law requires that we defend life.

One cannot claim that they can about freedom when in the same sentence they want to maintain the right to take life for any reason.

As the leader of this Building Trades Council, a union member and the father of a wonderful daughter and son, I feel th eneed to address a terrible step backwards for our country.

He is a parent, and he is a proud parent. He would have never been a parent if he had killed his children before they were born.

In 2018, my wife and I were told that our unborn son was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. At times, it seemed like we were encouraged not to bring our into this world.

Later in his column, he affirms that he and his wife put their children first, including their newborn son. They choose life, and that is a good thing.

But then he writes about his son:

David is a wonderful boy who brings joy to my life every day. He inspoires me every moment.

Guess what, Chris: every baby has that power and opportunity if they are allowed to be born!

And yet ...

In June, the United States Supreme Court overturned the law of the land that was codified in Roe v. Wade.

There are so many problems with this one sentence alone, I do not know where to begin. The Supreme Court does not make law, so it could not overturn a law, even if it wanted to. Second of all, because Roe was not a law to begin with, it was never a law in the first place! Third, the repeal of this decision does not strike down any abortion laws, because the Supreme Court rightly restored the legislative authority on this issue back to the states, where it has always belonged.

The ability of women to make their own health care deciscions was stripped away by the Supreme Court.

This is another ludicrous statement. Abortion access is not healthcare. Abortions hurt the mother, as much as they kill another life. This is the most outrageous rhetorical fraud in the whole abortion debate. On top of that, a mother's desire for healthcare is not compromised, even if the mother supposedly believes that includes abortion, because the mother can seek an abortion in a number of states.

When I read this article, I was struck by the lack of logical flow, since he talks about freedom, then he talks about being a parent, he then shares the joy of being a parent, then all of a sudden segues into criticizing the Supreme Court for repeal Roe.

He gives considerable attention to his joy in becoming a father, and he stands by he and his wife' decision to have their third child, even though he faced a significant health deformity. This line of reasoning would suggest that he is pro-life.

And yet, he believes that the Supreme Court was anti-freedom for requiring the states to enact codes allowing abortion. The court expanded freedom, and many states are taking a stand to protect life, which makes the expression of freedom possible.

I wonder how the members of the Building Trades Council feel about their current executive director. He is inarticulate, partially incoherent, politically obtuse, and greatly misinformed. Perhaps we can understand why so many union leaders throw in with the Democrat Party, and at the same time when many union members feel increasingly disenfranchised by their own leaders. Once again, what does pushing for abortion rights have to do with fighting for worker freedoms on the jobsite?

Revisiting Reaganism with George F. Will, Fifteen Years Later

Time to move on from Reagan,
wrote George F. Will as far back as 2007

Right before President George W. Bush's administration ended, George F. Will told conservatives that they needed to move on from Reagan.

Sadly, he didn't accept that the movement voters wanted meant Trump: a nationalist, populist, more isolationist foreign policy which focused on American citizens, stopped mass immigration (legal and illegal), and stopped with the reckless, globalist agenda-setting spending.

Will's call to move on from Ronald Reagan was published in 2007:

George F. Will:Conservatives must temper worship of Reaganism

WASHINGTON — In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis — gratitude decaying into idolatry — is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.

Reagan is dead, and Reaganism is dead. He met many of the challenges facing the country during the 1980s, and he scored a significant win in consigning international communism to the ash heap of history.

Today, the United State is looking at a harsher fate if We the People do not tackle the domestic marxism infecting our schools, universities, and other institutions.

That is one lesson of John Patrick Diggins' new book, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History." Diggins, a historian at the City University of New York, treats Reagan respectfully as an important subject in American intellectual history. The 1980s, he says, thoroughly joined politics to political theory. But he notes that Reagan's theory was radically unlike that of Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, and very like that of Burke's nemesis, Thomas Paine.

Burke believed that the past is prescriptive because tradition is a repository of moral wisdom. Reagan frequently quoted Paine's preposterous cry that "we have it in our power to begin the world over again."

This notion of "beginning the world again" would re-emerge with Barack Obama. Sadly, the change that he thought he would bring would be nothing more than corporate elitism spitting on the needs of everyday Americans. Reagan cared about America, he loved the American people, but the domestic issues we face today cannot be solved by the Reaganism of yesterday.

Diggins' thesis is that the 1980s were America's "Emersonian moment" because Reagan, a "political romantic" from the Midwest and West, echoed New England's Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Emerson was right," Reagan said several times of the man who wrote, "No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature." Hence Reagan's unique, and perhaps oxymoronic, doctrine — conservatism without anxieties. Reagan's preternatural serenity derived from his conception of the supernatural.

George Will depended way too much on quotes. What a distraction!

Putting aside the stylistic problems, Will does drill down a deeper issue: conservatism without anxieties. The truth is that every human being should be in tune with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. This repository of natural law defines and embeds the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. 

We want the Laws of Nature to be crystal clear to every American. Then would they be restored to the cultural and legal heritage of this country. So, for this part I find Will's criticism a little unfounded.

Diggins says Reagan imbibed his mother's form of Christianity, a strand of 19th-century Unitarianism from which Reagan took a foundational belief that he expressed in a 1951 letter: "God couldn't create evil so the desires he planted in us are good." This logic — God is good, therefore so are God-given desires — leads to the Emersonian faith that we please God by pleasing ourselves. Therefore there is no need for the people to discipline their desires. So, no leader needs to suggest that the public has shortcomings and should engage in critical self-examination.

I disagree with this take. The Scriptures could not be clearer regarding human direction and will in conjunction with God's will and desires:

"12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

Diggins thinks that Reagan's religion "enables us to forget religion" because it banishes the idea of "a God of judgment and punishment." Reagan's popularity was largely the result of "his blaming government for problems that are inherent in democracy itself." To Reagan, the idea of problems inherent in democracy was unintelligible because it implied that there were inherent problems with the demos — the people.

Human nature is flawed as well as fulsome, no doubt about that. Human nature does need to be limited, not expanded upon. This notion of human expansion and cheery optimism led to higher spending during his administration, with no real interest in tackling the massive debt that has only grown much, much worse over the last forty years.

There was nothing — nothing — in Reagan's thinking akin to Lincoln's melancholy fatalism, his belief (see his Second Inaugural) that the failings of the people on both sides of the Civil War were the reasons why "the war came."

It's essential for a president to rally and cheer up the citizenry, certainly, so I do not believe that a president should beat down on the national electorate exclusively. There is room, and much need, for course corrections among the people, no doubt. There is a fallen aspect to human nature which cannot be ignored, of course, for for that reason the United States Constitution instituted so many checks and balances on political power.

As Diggins says, Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding." To the founders, and especially to the wisest of them, James Madison, government's principal function is to resist, modulate and even frustrate the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires.

See above.

"The true conservatives, the founders," Diggins rightly says, constructed a government full of blocking mechanisms — separations of powers, a bicameral legislature and other checks and balances — in order "to check the demands of the people." Madison's constitution responds to the problem of human nature. "Reagan," says Diggins, "let human nature off the hook."

"An unmentionable irony," writes Diggins, is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism. "Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it." Unless people have a bad conscience about demanding big government — a dispenser of unending entitlements — they will get ever larger government.

There is a great deal of truth to this indictment. Reagan did not cut the spending, and he only slowed the growth of government. Today, forty years after the last inflation crises under President Jimmy Carter, the American public is enduring the long-term cost and consequences of printing money ad libitum.

But how can people have a bad conscience after being told (in Reagan's First Inaugural) that they are all heroes? And after being assured that all their desires, which inevitably include desires for government-supplied entitlements, are good?

Barack Obama would echo similar sentiments during his 2008 campaign and into this first and second inaugural. The cheery optimism that treats human beings as basically good, while the government and the environment are the truly flawed features, will create nothing but problems for true constitutional governance.

Similarly, Reagan said that the people never start wars, only governments do. But the Balkans reached a bloody boil because of the absence of effective government. Which describes Iraq today.

George Will was a vocal opponet of the War in Iraq, as was John McLaughlin and a number of other paleoconservatives. Strangely enough, George Will hated President Trump, who was the first President in thirty years to keep the United States out of war and scale back American military commitments around the world!

Because of Reagan's role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Diggins ranks him among the "three great liberators in American history" — the others being Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — and among America's three or four greatest presidents. But, says Diggins, an Emersonian president who tells us our desires are necessarily good leaves much to be desired.

It depends on what the desires are, and it depends how individuals push to realize those desires. If people want to use the government to fulfill their desires, they will find and create nothing but frustration. After Reagan, we have yet to see a Republican President who has been committed to cutting the spending and shrinking the size and scope of the state.

Will Trump follow through, should he get re-elected in 2024?

If the defining doctrine of the Republican Party is limited government, the party must move up from nostalgia and leaven its reverence for Reagan with respect for Madison. As Diggins says, Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they want to hear; the Madisonian persuasion tells them sobering truths that they need to know.

The American people have many sobering truths to face, like the fact that demographic demise, via births and mass immigration, is hurting the structure of the country. The excessive spending due to the reckless entitlement promises must come to an end. 

Reagan said that government is the problem, but he never stopped growing that problem. The next generation of leaders and representatives in Washington DC and around the world will have to get used to saying NO to lobbyists, grifters, and consultants, and say NO to growing government.

Human nature needs a heavey dose of NO at this time, now more than any other, and Reaganism cannot provided that needed check and balance.

Why Teachers Are Quitting the Teaching Profession (It's Not the Money)

Why are teachers quitting the teaching profession?

Is it the money? NOPE!

I can tell you first-hand, that all the money in the world would not entice me back into the classroom. A six-figure salary is not enough for me, even with all the benefits. 60 Minutes did a report on an innovative charter school in New York City, where the teachers received considerably generous salaries (yes, six figures), but the workload was beyond intense. They were expected to be on call for the students, the school, the parents, the support staff all throughout the week. It was almost as though the teachers did not have a life of their own.

That was the feedback from some of the teachers, at least.

Don't take my word for it. You can hear it from them:       


Recent studies have been released trying to figure out what teachers are quitting, and this report sheds some serious light on the issue:

REPORT: 615Midwestern Teachers Reveal Why They’re Really Leaving the Classroom

Data Contradicts Unions' Reasons for Shortage

Countless education advocates have spent the last few months warning of the approaching teacher shortage—myself included. Voices from the left have warned of every reason from low teacher pay to COVID-19 policy to parents at school board meetings, while closer colleagues of mine in the center and on the right have suggested a behavioral crisis.

 There will be a teacher shortage, certainly. But there will be a student shortage that will rival the teacher shortage, too. Parents don't want their kids to suffer in the crappy, decayed government school programs.

I set out to confirm a regional understanding of why so many teachers have announced their departure from Midwestern classrooms this year—either abandoning the field altogether or switching school districts.

Only K-12 teachers were invited to complete this seven question survey (three introductory questions with four content/core questions). Limiting factors via survey distribution and internal mechanisms functioned as an endeavor to keep the data safer from the taint of political advocacy—though I will admit there is no way to keep something like this sterile. Most likely, a different set of 615 qualified responders would yield a different result, therefore I only pose that this is the best data I could collect independently, at the current time.

 That's a pretty good cohort, though, so there's not too much to worry about.

Of the 682 total responses, only 615 qualified to participate in the survey. 67 of the responses answered question two, “What is the staff email assigned to you by the district you currently/previously worked in?” with an email address not verifiable as a school email.

Additionally, teachers were asked if they were leaving their position as a K-12 teacher and what Midwestern state (Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio) they worked in. While the definition of what Midwestern means culturally is up for debate, this was a cultural region I had experience with—far more than either U.S. coastal corridor, for example.

Once past the initial three framing and introductory questions, four questions were presented to responders:

1. Given the reasons below, what is the largest reason you’re leaving your position?

Salary is insufficient

Student behavior is poor and left unchecked.

Progressive political activity (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, Critical Race Theory, Gender Identity, etc.) required by administration.

Parental concerns with your classroom (Demands from parents about curriculum, instruction, etc.)

COVID-19 Policies

Safety concerns about school shootings

Lack of materials to teach effectively (self-financed classrooms, etc.)

Standardized Testing

Licensure Expiration or Professional Development requirements


2. If salary were considered an ancillary reason, i.e. “I’m not being paid enough to deal with _______”, what would you suggest is the largest reason you’re leaving your classroom?

Student behavior is poor and left unchecked.

Progressive political activity (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion, Critical Race Theory, Gender Identity, etc.) required by administration.

Parental concerns with your classroom (Demands from parents about curriculum, instruction, etc.)

COVID-19 Policies

Safety concerns about school shootings

Lack of materials to teach effectively (self-financed classrooms, etc.)

Standardized Testing

Licensure Expiration or Professional Development requirements


3. If the present administration could provide evidence that this specific problem is being dealt with satisfactorily, would you return to this classroom?

Yes, this year

Yes, after a year or more of proof


Not sure

Were you a member of a local or national teachers union at some point during the previous academic year?



Of the responders with salary as an included primary reason, 319 of the 615 responders listed student behavior as their biggest reason to leave the classroom, followed by 138 for “progressive political activity” and 134 for “salary is insufficient”.

When pay is listed as an ancillary reason in contribution to another factor, the numbers shift dramatically. 447 of 615 responders listed unchecked student behavior as their primary reason for leaving the classroom. 128 listed “progressive political activity”, while only nine listed parental harassment.

Students are getting away with all kinds of abusive behavior in the classroom. It's really bad.

In California, teachers are no longer allowed to remove students from a classroom for defiance. Can anyone imagine trying govern a classroom, when students know that there will be no repercussions for their misconduct? In Torrance Unified, where I live, one student told me that he had teachers who would "rage quit" frequently because of student outrages and abuses. He didn't fill in the blank on one issue, which was that mostly like the teacher did not have the authority to remove a student who was disruptive or disrespectful.

There is no way for a teacher to teach a classroom if the student does not respect the teacher. It's not going to work. In many cases, most teachers just give up on trying to teach real content, and instead the focus on pushing political activism. It makes them feel good, and it gives the students an outlet to act up. 

Given this, it’s beyond incredible that Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers and Becky Pringle of the National Education Association would cite Republicans’ and parents’ “politicization” of the classroom as the reason for the teacher shortage. It’s not even a secondary or tertiary issue—it’s forty-nine times less important to teachers than the behavioral crisis.

The "behavioral crisis" is precisely the way to put it. Parents are not disciplining their own children, and trial lawyers go to great lengths to intimidate school boards and administrators about discipline in the classroom. Add to this mess the proliferation of Critical Racist Theory, in which black and Hispanic students are taught to see themselves as perennial victims at the hand of white opppressors, and these kids can milk the system, act up any way they please, then shout "Racism!" if anyone tries to hold them accountable.

Furthermore, 356 of the 615 teachers reported that they were a member of a teachers union this previous year. It’s not just non-union teachers that are reporting these issues.

In other words, the teachers unions are not doing their jobs to protect the teachers! Wow, I am shocked-shocked!

I was surprised to see that only 21% of responders answered “yes” to returning to the classroom of the district if their complaints were reported to have been dealt with.

The numbers are that low, because there is no real hope that school districts wil implement effective policies to back up the teachers. They have seen "The Blob" that dominates school districts, in which the inertia of warring interest groups frustrates any meaningful reform.

In this first survey, I conclude that it’s reasonable (at the very least) to cast extreme doubt on union and education advocacy organizations claiming that pay and parental harassment are the primary issues for teachers leaving.

When salary is listed as a contributing factor, 93.35% of Midwestern teachers claim that their resignation is due to student behavior and progressive political activity required in their classrooms.

It's not about the money. It's just not. Time for politicians to stop lying to the public and stop demanding more money.

Personally, I had assumed that teacher licensure and professional developments would be a greater share of the responses.

One of the teachers who responded they were resigning due to fear of school shootings submitted their response May 25—the day after the Uvalde, Texas shooting.

One self-criticism of note is that I didn’t separate “Conservative/Republican education legislation” from “parental concerns.” Though the GOP legislative action was a direct derivative of parental distress beginning during the COVID-19 lockdowns, I should have split those. Also, I should have provided a text submission option for “If you selected ‘other’, why?” I’m rather curious as to what those responses represented.

I also should have added resignation options like, “I’ve reached retirement-age” and “inter-personal staff disagreements.” There are several others which come to mind; the options listed were found in a major publication (NPR, NEA, AFT, Chalkbeat, EdWeek, etc.) as a primary reason over the last 12 months.

True, there are other reasons why people call it quits, but the fact that teachers positively answered that student misconduct topped their reason for leaving, well that says it all.

Final Reflection

Teachers take a lot of crap, and the lack of power granted to teachers in the classroom is driving many of them out of the professional entirely. It's not enough to pay a teacher a good salary. They have to command the respect of the students, the parents, and the administrators. By and large, teachers are not getting the respect they need, let alone the respect they deserve, to run their classrooms. The fact that teachers unions are lying about the reasons for the teacher shortage proves the lack of respect they are getting from the very people who are supposed to be representing their interests in the first place!

Nas Daily BUSTED: Guilt Activist Cries Foul, Claims Victimhood Over Guilt Activism

Nas Daily confronted by Avi Remini of Rebel News

NAS Daily is a globalist chill.

He pushes climate alarmism. He wants everyone to stop eating meat.

He talks about other woke priorities, like privileges for woman and other secular programs and proposals.

Finally, he was confronted for his double-dealing hypocrisy by Avi Yemini of Rebel News:

Here's Avi's video:


And here's Nas Daily trying to spin himself into the victim:


There is something really satisfying about seeing these liberal social media influencers get their comeuppance live and in person. Who goes to DAVOS and dares claim that nothing costs anyone?

Why is that Nas Daily is determined to push everyone away from eating meat or traveling in their cars? One has to wonder how he justifies his production costs based on views alone, too.

I doubt that his ability as a media influencer is the sole and sufficient source of income for his globalist-pushing empire.

The best part about Avi Yemini calling out Nas' hypocrisy, though, is that Nas' attempt to spin himself into the victim backfired bigly.

Check out all the comments underneath his own "spin" video on YouTube (the top comments):

Alex F
You've been found out dude. Fake activism always gets found out.
JB TwoFour
It's nice to see the comments are filled with people calling you out for BS. It makes me happy :)
You are the master of guilt activism
Josh Moxey
It's hard to turn the tables on Avi when 1) he's not the one pretending to care about the climate 2) he asked you a simple question and you spun out of control due to inconsistencies in thought
Nas, Nas,Nas you’re as genuine as a Chinese Rolex.
Suzana Mijic
We love Avi Yemini. He is the real and most importantly independent journalist who exposes the truth and don’t run away from questions. He have a few questions for you Nas. It would be nice from you to answer them.

I was really impressed to see that most of the YouTube viewers were wise to the game. I have really hope for the future of this country, and the world, when everyday viewers can see the crap and call out the propaganda.

God bless Rebel News! Avi Yemini and his team did an excellent job confronting Nas and exposing his hypocrisy.

Instead of asking about his carbon footprint, people need to ask Nas Daily about his Bull-sh*t footprint, because we all know it's immense!