Search This Blog

Thursday, April 10, 2025

South Korea establishes diplomatic ties with Syria, a North Korea ally

 South Korea and Syria have signed an agreement in Damascus establishing diplomatic relations, the South Korean foreign ministry said on Friday, opening new ties with a traditional ally of its rival North Korea.

The event marks a milestone for South Korea now having established diplomatic ties with all 191 U.N. member states and opening "a new chapter for bilateral cooperation with Syria, which had long remained distant due to its close ties with North Korea," the South Korean foreign ministry said.

South Korea established diplomatic relations with Cuba last year, another old ally of the North.

North Korea's state media ceased mentions of Syria since the overthrow of former President Bashar al-Assad in December except leader Kim Jong Un once referring to "the Middle East crisis" in passing.

A joint communique was signed by South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul and Syria's Asaad al-Shibani on Thursday, and Cho expressed willingness to share South Korea's development experience to support Syria's reconstruction, the ministry said.

Cho later met Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, it said.

https://www.aol.com/analysis-europeans-sidelined-us-iran-215433401.html

The Atlantic Insists On COVID Denial

 by Ian Miller via The Brownstone Institute,

In a spectacular feat of reality-denying partisanship, the political left has convinced itself that they’ve somehow admitted wrongdoing on their extremist Covid policies. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth.

As a reminder, the left, thanks in large part to Anthony Fauci, shut down businesses, schools, playgrounds, sports, and live events. They used curfews, capacity limits, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, created “tier-system” reopening charts based on nothing, dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy theory, and labeled anyone who disagreed with them.

None of the politicians involved in this inexcusable, world-destroying, anti-science policy-making has apologized for any of it. Not one has admitted they were wrong. Fauci, a far-left politician himself, has not only never apologized or admitted wrongdoing, but had the audacity to say that criticisms of him and his policy positions were inexcusable criticisms of science itself.

The most that individuals like Gavin Newsom or other prominent members of the left will do is say that they didn’t know at the time what we know now. Except, of course, that’s also a complete lie.

NFL: NFC Championship-Detroit Lions at San Francisco 49ers. Jan 28, 2024; Santa Clara, California, USA; California Governor Gavin Newsom attends the NFC Championship football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Detroit Lions at Levi’s Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Kelley L Cox-USA TODAY Sports

Left-Wing Media Continues with Covid Reality Denial

The Atlantic published an article by Jonathan Chait revisiting Covid lockdowns around the fifth anniversary of “15 Days to Slow the Spread.” And it made the remarkably inaccurate case that the left has engaged in a far-ranging “searching self-reflection” on their failed policies.

“Liberals have engaged in searching self-reflection—on school closings, the lab-leak hypothesis, the political aftereffects, and other unanticipated lessons. Conservatives have used the occasion to engage in a round of self-congratulations and taunting of the libs,” Chait writes.

This is, of course, nonsense.

Where is the “searching self-reflection” on mask mandates? Where is the “searching self-reflection” on vaccine mandates? Or firing thousands of people, tens of thousands of people, for refusing to get a vaccine that did nothing to stop infection or transmission? Where is the “searching self-reflection” on the businesses that were shut down, in many cases, permanently, because Democratic governors and mayors turned into fanatical extremists for years on end?

Where’s the apology for letting it all continue well after it was clear that their mandates and lockdowns weren’t working?

Chait’s delusional article only gets worse from there.

He claims that the shift in the lab-leak discussion shows how self-reflective the political left is on Covid. Praising Zeynep Tufecki for her intellectual honesty.

“Conservatives, who generally assume that the mainstream media are as ideologically rigid as the conservative media, appear not to have noticed any of this until Tufekci’s most recent contribution to the genre, which produced an onslaught of football-spiking. (Tufekci herself was skeptical of public-health guidance throughout the pandemic),” he writes.

Except Tufecki helped shut down self-reflection on masking by demanding that a prominent scientific institution contradict its own evidence showing that masks didn’t work. All because Tufecki herself, as a sociologist, had written an unjustifiable, inaccuracy-riddled paper with a software engineer demanding more masks.

She wasn’t skeptical of public health guidance, she contributed to it. The CDC had correctly avoided telling the public to wear masks early on in the pandemic, only changing their mind after another inaccuracy-riddled piece of misinformation Tufecki wrote in the Times in spring 2020.

Chait is, as he so frequently does, completely misleading his readers in order to support his political party. Though at least he admits that he and the Times are left-wing media.

As always, he defends the left’s historic atrocities during Covid by saying it was “an understandable bout of confusion in the face of fast-moving events.”

“I don’t want to suggest that the political left always followed the science. The initial response to COVID, after an understandable bout of confusion in the face of fast-moving events, was afflicted with ideological rigidity,” he writes.

“Liberals got some things about the pandemic correct and other things wrong, and over time, many of them have disavowed or at least moved away from their wrong beliefs.”

Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. This is an objective lie. A purposeful lie, to avoid responsibility and accountability for his party. The left, including the high priest of politically-minded pseudoscience and quack “cures,” Anthony Fauci, has done nothing to “disavow” or “move away from” their wrong beliefs.

Literally THIS YEAR, hospitals in the far-left Bay Area have been forcing hospital visitors to wear masks. This year. The head of public health in LA has threatened mask mandates every single winter since the start of the pandemic. Even after her own data showed they didn’t work.

There’s been no reckoning on vaccine mandates; it took a new administration, again, literally this year, to end vaccine-related discrimination for those seeking green cards.

Chait is, quite simply, lying.

And not just about the “self-reflection” nonsense.

We knew in 2020 that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI), the mandates left-wing media and politicians salivated over, did not work. Not just from observational data, which confirmed over and over again that mandates and lockdowns had failed. But from scientific research papers published in 2020 demonstrating that there was no noticeable effect from the incorporation of NPIs. Anywhere.

Here’s a sampling of just one example.

“Given the observation that transmission rates for COVID-19 fell virtually everywhere in the world during this early pandemic period, we are concerned that these studies may substantially overstate the role of government-mandated NPI’s in reducing disease transmission due to an omitted variable bias. Moreover, given the observation that disease transmission rates have remained low with relatively low dispersion across locations worldwide for the past several months as NPI’s have been lifted, we are concerned that estimates of the effectiveness of NPI’s in reducing disease transmission from the earlier period may not be relevant for forecasting the impact of the relaxation of those NPI’s in the current period, due to some unobserved switch in regime.”

Their conclusion is even more damning for Chait’s “argument.”

“One of the central policy questions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is the question of which non-pharmeceutical interventions governments might use to influence the transmission of the disease. Our ability to identify empirically which NPI’s have what impact on disease transmission depends on there being enough independent variation in both NPI’s and disease transmission across locations as well as our having robust procedures for controlling for other observed and unobserved factors that might be influencing disease transmission. The facts that we document in this paper cast doubt on this premise.”

“Our finding in Fact 1 that early declines in the transmission rate of COVID-19 were nearly universal worldwide suggest that the role of region-specific NPI’s implemented in this early phase of the pandemic is likely overstated. This finding instead suggests that some other factor(s) common across regions drove the early and rapid transmission rate declines.”

Again, this is from August 2020. We knew then, as we know now, that government mandates and lockdowns were useless against the virus, and devastatingly harmful for society and the economy. Chait and his party refused to listen then, and refuse to listen now.

What consequences has Anthony Fauci faced? Or Gavin Newsom? Or Rochelle Walensky, who lied to the public about vaccine efficacy, repeatedly, on left-wing media?

Instead, they find it more mentally tolerable to lie, deflect, misinform, and revise history. Acknowledging the role they played in a historic disaster is too difficult for them to accept. But no matter what they say now, that’s exactly what they caused. With zero accountability for any of it.

Republished from the author’s Substack

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/atlantic-insists-covid-denial

Trump Pulls Security Clearance For Ex-CISA Director Chris Krebs, Orders Probe Into Censorship

 The Trump administration has pulled security clearances for former CISA head Chris Krebs and ex-DHS official Miles Taylor and has ordered investigations into their actions while in office.

Former CISA head Chris Krebs

For a refresher, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was reportedly in direct contact with platforms like Twitter throughout the 2020 election cycle, which one DJS official told the NY Times "was the biggest change that helped shore up digital defenses in [2020] election management systems."

The White House issued the following statement regarding Krebs:

Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective.

The statement further notes that this type of abusive conduct "violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself," and that those who engage in or support such conduct must not have continued access to our Nation's secrets."

The order also suspends security clearances held by those in Krebs' orbit, including individuals working at American "AI" cybersecurity company, SentinelOne.

Furthermore, Trump directed AG Pam Bondi and DHS head Kristi Noem "to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA."

This review should identify any instances where Krebs’ conduct appears to have been contrary to suitability standards for Federal employees, involved the unauthorized dissemination of classified information, or contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149 of January 20, 2025 (Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship). As part of that review, I direct a comprehensive evaluation of all of CISA’s activities over the last 6 years, focusing specifically on any instances where CISA’s conduct appears to have been contrary to the purposes and policies identified in Executive Order 14149.

Miles Taylor, meanwhile, served as the chief of staff to the Homeland Security Secretary under the first Trump administration - and then wrote a book and a NYT op-ed under the pen name "Anonymous" - of which Trump said: "I think he's guilty of treason if you want to know the truth."

In response to having his security clearance revoked, Taylor posted on X: "Dissent isn’t unlawful. It certainly isn’t treasonous."

Which was not met with much sympathy on the right...

CCP Spills Beans At Secret Geneva Meeting, Acknowledges Role In US Infrastructure Hacks

 "Volt Typhoon" is the name assigned by U.S. cybersecurity officials to a state-sponsored cyber operation linked to the Chinese Communist Party that has quietly penetrated critical infrastructure networks across the U.S., apparently with the aim of unleashing disruptive or destructive cyberattacks. 

In a previously closed-door meeting held in Geneva last December, Chinese officials offered what top U.S. officials interpreted as a tacit admission of responsibility for the cyberattack campaign against U.S. critical infrastructure, including computer networks at U.S. ports, water utilities, airports, and other targets, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter.

The report of the Chinese acknowledgment, cited by WSJ sources, comes amid escalating trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, as the Trump administration raises tariffs on Chinese goods. A White House official confirmed to CNBC earlier that the effective tariff rate will soon exceed 145%. Sources characterized the Volt Typhoon not as traditional espionage but as a means to sabotage capabilities inside civilian infrastructure in the event of a future conflict. This is directly tied to the U.S.' increased support for Taiwan, the people added.

The people said the Biden-Harris regime and the Trump transition team were briefed about the Geneva summit in December. 

Here's more color on the report from WSJ:

The first-of-its-kind Signal at a Geneva summit with the outgoing Biden administration startled American officials used to hearing their Chinese counterparts blame the campaign, which security researchers have dubbed Volt Typhoon, on a criminal outfit, or accuse the U.S. of having an overactive imagination. 

U.S. officials went public last year with unusually dire warnings about the uncovered Volt Typhoon effort. They publicly attributed it to Beijing trying to get a foothold in U.S. computer networks so its army could quickly detonate damaging cyberattacks during a future conflict.

The Chinese official's remarks at the December meeting were indirect and somewhat ambiguous, but most of the American delegation in the room interpreted it as a tacit admission and a warning to the U.S. about Taiwan, a former U.S. official familiar with the meeting said.

Last year, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that Volt Typhoon compromised the IT systems of multiple critical infrastructure organizations, primarily in the communications, energy, transportation systems, and water and wastewater systems sectors across the U.S.

"Volt Typhoon's choice of targets and pattern of behavior is not consistent with traditional cyber espionage or intelligence gathering operations, and the U.S. authoring agencies assess with high confidence that Volt Typhoon actors are pre-positioning themselves on IT networks to enable lateral movement to OT assets to disrupt functions," CISA warned in February 2024.

In addition to the Volt Typhoon, another cyber espionage operation linked to the CCP is the ongoing Salt Typhoon, aimed at deep surveillance and long-term intelligence collection. Hence why, U.S. Gov't officials have been instructed to use end-to-end encrypted communications, Apple iMessage, and Signal.

Top Trump administration officials need to clean house across the federal government's cybersecurity workers for allowing such attacks to occur without a proper response.

The previous administration took little to no action against the Communists—could this be why? Was Biden China's Manchurian Candidate all along?

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/ccp-spills-beans-secret-geneva-meeting-acknowledges-role-us-infrastructure-hacks

WaPo Negligent Fear-Mongering About NIH

 by George F. Tidmarsh via RealClearPolitics,

Is the WaPo journalistically challenged when it comes to science? You decide.

An April 6 article in the Washington Post, one of the most recent attacks of the NIH as it undergoes administrative changes, claims that “A big step forward in cancer therapy has been slowed by layoffs and new restrictions at the National Institutes of Health, where it was developed.” The focus is on a Nature Medicine article[1] published on April 1 that is presented as a crucial advancement in “utilizing a patient's own immune cells to combat gastrointestinal cancers.” The Washington Post article delves into the study’s background and theory rather than its results, which allows it to conveniently obscure the fact that the therapy is anything but a breakthrough. Distressing instances of continuing patient treatment despite evidence of the therapy's ineffectiveness, alongside an unprecedented 355 modifications to the study protocol over 14 years, reveal serious oversights requiring thorough investigation by the NIH into its intramural research practices.

In oncology, when there are no effective treatments available for patients, researchers often conduct non-comparative studies focusing on one treatment group. To ensure patient safety, Simon's 2-stage study design[2] is employed (the researchers cited this as the design that they were following). The idea is simple: researchers want to see if there's any positive effect, like tumor reduction, from the new therapy while minimizing patient exposure to ineffective or risky treatments. In the first stage, thirty patients are enrolled, aiming for a minimum response rate of 20% to justify further enrollment (indicating a significant improvement compared to leaving patients untreated). If fewer than 20% of patients respond, the study halts immediately to avoid harm to patients without proof of treatment benefit[3], a practice that has been standard since the 1980s.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential of neoantigen-specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) as therapies for solid tumor cancers, specifically focusing on gastrointestinal cancer. The researchers aimed to compare patient responses between standard TILs and neoantigen-specific  TILs (which they called “selected TILs”). While standard TILs showed a negligible clinical response, the novel selected TILs demonstrated a mere 7.7% response rate, falling short of the 20% threshold for a "modest response." These patients showed only partial improvement; no patient saw a complete elimination of their tumor, which only further supports the notion that this therapy’s activity was not significant. To make matters worse, the patients received chemotherapy and FDA-approved biological therapy in addition to the experimental cell therapy, which could, on their own, be entirely responsible for any tumor shrinkage that was observed.

At this point, had the investigators adhered to the principles of their trial design, they would have terminated the study, preventing further patient exposure to a therapy with no clear benefit. However, they proceeded, administering selected TILs along with the commonly used immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab. The addition of pembrolizumab, which is already known for blocking the PD-1 protein on T-cells and enhancing their activity against cancer cells[4], resulted in a 23.5% patient response rate. The researchers used this to claim that their trial demonstrates that “TILs selected for neoantigen reactivity can mediate tumor regression even in treatment-refractory metastatic GI cancers that are not thought to be sensitive to immunotherapy.”

The logical error here is astounding: the new intervention alone failed to trigger a notable patient response, yet the conclusion was erroneously drawn that the intervention was responsible, disregarding the marked impact of a known-effective drug. In addition to a grave violation of basic clinical reasoning, this study displays alarming disregard for standard clinical trial ethics. As mentioned previously, this “breakthrough” therapy uses a highly toxic conditioning regimen of chemotherapy and high-dose biologic therapy (another FDA-approved biologic therapy called interleukin-2). Not only could individualized responses of patients to chemotherapy significantly influence the effectiveness of the novel selected TIL therapy, but all patients also experienced severe toxicity, with 10% requiring hospitalization. More specifically, “seven patients required escalation of care for critical support: three for mechanical ventilation…one for continuous renal replacement therapy…three required both modalities…” and there was even “one treatment-related death attributed to adenoviral hepatitis 49 d after TIL infusion.”

The Washington Post’s sensationalistic and poorly informed journalism has inadvertently exposed disturbing negligence on the part of NIH investigators. A gross lack of adherence to basic clinical trial study design and ethics resulted in significant harm to patients without any discernible benefits. We call upon the NIH to investigate this trial thoroughly and use its findings to install necessary oversight mechanisms across its clinical research activities.

George F. Tidmarsh, MD, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, is an Adjunct Professor, Pediatrics and Neonatology. He is the Founder, M-TRAM, and Senior Advisor, Center for Advanced Pediatric and Perinatal Education.

Arman Sharma, a recent graduate of Stanford University, helped in writing and research for this article.

US targets China oil storage terminal in new Iran-related sanctions

 The United States imposed sanctions on Iran's oil trading networks on Thursday, including on a China-based crude oil storage terminal linked via a pipeline to an independent refinery.

The Trump administration also designated India- and United Arab Emirates-based groups whose tankers have transported Iranian oil.

The U.S. imposed sanctions on Guangsha Zhoushan Energy Group Co, LTD that it said operates a crude oil and petroleum products terminal on Huangzeshan Island in Zhoushan, China. The U.S. State Department said the terminal is directly connected through the Huangzeshan–Yushan Under Sea Oil Pipeline to a nearby independent refinery known as a "teapot" plant.

The terminal knowingly engaged in the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of oil from Iran, it said.

It was Washington's latest round of sanctions on Iran since President Donald Trump said in February he was re-imposing a "maximum pressure" campaign including efforts to drive down the country's oil exports to zero in order to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon.

The sanctions came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. will hold direct talks with Iran on Saturday in Oman. Trump said on Monday Iran would be in "great danger" if the talks were unsuccessful.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-targets-china-oil-storage-terminal-in-new-iran-related-sanctions/ar-AA1CH70f

Teachers Need To Ditch Their Union

 by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

The Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision asserted that no teacher or any public employee has to pay a penny to a union as a condition of employment. While the unions have made it very difficult for teachers to leave, it is certainly doable.

So how many teachers have left their union?

According to a U.S. Department of Labor report filed in December, which includes data from the 2023-24 school year, the National Education Association has 2,839,808 total members, including educators, student teachers, retirees, NEA staff, and other miscellaneous categories. That’s down from 2,857,703 the year before. The number of working members—such as active teachers and support staff—was 2,471,782, a decline of 12,558 or about .005%.

While many observers are happy to see that the union is losing members, I am not joining the party. Instead, I wonder why so many still belong.

When teachers join a union, they are joining three—their local, state, and national affiliates. And the bulk of their dues money is not going where they think it goes. The NEA currently siphons off $213 yearly, but most of the money goes to the state affiliate. In the Golden State, the California Teachers Association, the NEA’s state partner, grabs $816 yearly. There is no set amount for the local union; however, it is typically about $200 per annum.

How does the union spend the dues?

As explained by Mailee Smith, Illinois Policy Institute’s senior director of labor policy, the NEA’s spending on politics and other contributions is more than four times higher than its spending on representation, with just 9% of its expenditures on teacher representation, which should be its core focus.

And just who benefits from the political spending?

As Open Secrets discloses, in 2024, NEA spent $22,744,023 on politics, with 98.24% going to Democrats and a paltry 1.76% going to Republicans.

The California Teachers Association, which considers itself “the co-equal fourth branch of government,” per former Democratic State Senate leader Dom Perata, is no better. As the Freedom Foundation notes, the union reports its political expenditures under three separate filings:

  • The Issues Political Action Committee (PAC);

  • The Association for Better Citizenship (ABC); and,

  • The Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC).

From January to October 2024, union filings show more than $12 million in political contributions. The Issues PAC alone made an $830,000 contribution to the Democratic Party, while the ABC gave $287,000 to Democrats compared to just $21,425 to Republicans.

The CTA is hardly the only union led by left-leaning leadership. The Colorado Education Association has adopted a resolution opposing capitalism. This NEA affiliate, which represents about 40,000 educators and staff, has issued a statement saying it believes “capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources.

Some local unions, especially in big cities, also get into the act. In California, after the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel in 2023, leaders of the Oakland Education Association called on school leaders to stand in solidarity with Palestinians. “We, the members of OEA, express our unequivocal support for Palestinian liberation and self-determination. We condemn the genocidal and apartheid state of Israel,” a now-deleted post on Instagram read.

But aren’t teachers invariably on the left?

Well, no.

NEA president Reg Weaver stated in 2008 that one-third of his union’s membership is Republican, one-third is Democrat, and one-third is “other.”

Mike Antonucci explained in 2010 that NEA members lean no further to the left than any other large group of Americans. “The national union conducts periodic internal surveys to ascertain member attitudes on various issues. These surveys are never made public, and results are tightly controlled, even within the organization. The 2005 NEA survey, consistent with previous results, found that members are slightly more conservative (50%) than liberal (43%) in political philosophy.”

A 2017 EdWeek poll found that 43% of teachers described themselves as politically moderate, 29% as liberal, and 27% as conservative.

In 2024, a Pew study found 58 percent of public school teachers identified as Democrats and 35 percent identified as Republicans.

Don’t teachers’ unions help teachers get higher pay?

Absolutely not!

In fact, the opposite is true. Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Institute writes that collective bargaining agreements (CBA) hurt the bottom line of all teachers. “Teachers in non-collective bargaining districts earn more than their union-protected peers—$64,500 on average versus $57,500.” Petrilli’s study was conducted in 2011, and research by Michael Lovenheim in 2009 and Andrew Coulson in 2010 bore similar results. Also, University of California, San Diego professor Augustina Pagalayan reported in 2018 that CBAs do not improve teacher pay.

Liability insurance is one of the only decent benefits offered by the teachers’ unions. However, teachers can instead join the Association of American Educators or Christian Educators Association International—professional organizations—and get better coverage at a much lower cost.

Aren’t students better off when teachers are unionized?

Another resounding no.

One union-mandated atrocity is the seniority, or “last in, first out,” regimen. If teachers must be laid off, the typical union contract stipulates that it must be done this arbitrary way. A study from Stanford University finds that only 13% to 16% of the teachers laid off in a seniority-based system would also be cut under a system based on teacher effectiveness.

Additionally, there is tenure, or more accurately, “permanent status,” which in California means that after just two years on the job, teachers essentially have a job for life. We most definitely should not have this awful law on the books for people who are in charge of our most precious commodity—our children.

During the Vergara trial in California, it was revealed that just 2.2 of the state’s 300,000 teachers (0.0008%) were dismissed for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory performance in any given year. This compares to 8% of employees in the private sector being dismissed annually for cause. Applying the 8% number to teachers, about 24,000 underperforming teachers per year should be let go.

For teachers who want to be in a union but don’t want to fund the left-wing agenda of their state and national affiliates, what can they do?

For starters, they can decertify their current union and start a local-only union. No easy task, but it is doable.

Recently, in St. Louis, teachers and staff members at KIPP St. Louis High voted to oust the American Federation of Teachers local. The vote to remove the union followed turbulence over strikes at the charter school in the spring of 2024.

In January, a group of California teachers dumped their union in favor of an independent, dues-free entity. Educators in the Blochman Union School District voted to leave their NEA-affiliated union and start the Blochman Teachers Group.

The effort began last summer when a Blochman teacher contacted the Freedom Foundation, which helps public employees get out of their unions.

In reality, public employee unions should never have seen the light of day.

“All government employees should realize that the collective bargaining process, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”

Progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued the above caveat about government unions. Additionally, George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO for 24 years, stated in 1955, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

Both men understood that the very nature of government makes it wrong for its leaders to negotiate with any union. When government unions bargain, they often sit across the table from people they helped put in office with generous campaign contributions. And when these unions go on strike, they walk out on the taxpayer, who foots the bill but has no voice.

On March 27, President Trump may have gotten this essential reform rolling, signing an executive order to end collective bargaining for unions across most of the federal government.

If we did away with the teachers’ unions, taxpayers, children, and good teachers would benefit greatly.

Barring that, teachers should simply walk away from their unions.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/teachers-need-ditch-their-union