Education

Barb Rush Attacks Hungry Children on the Way Out

Shares


I really want to let this go, but it’d be foolish to imagine that Barb Rush won’t be running again for the School Board at the next opportunity and her behavior after her loss is just as revealing as her behavior during the election.

Instead of congratulating her opponents for victory, she posted a nearly incoherent diatribe attacking the unions, schools, Planned Parenthood, and poor children who get to eat when they come to learn:

So while outspending us 30 to one they did eek out a victory of about 1,000 votes about 1/8 of the total votes and no one even got 50%. So what does this mean? Do we give up?Of course not. Does anyone ever give up on family and country? Maybe there is someone but not true Americans. As one of our famous forefathers said “We have just begun to fight”. Goliath beat David last night but he will not win out eventually.

It’s interesting to note that to win this victory they ran as conservatives- all about character not the “Health Enhancement ” curriculum  or teaching 10 year olds anal sex and 5 year olds to “recognize mental illness”. So our job is to continue to educate the public.

Special interests from Planned Parenthood to Youth Connections and the unions won this election. It’s about business- grants that bring jobs and benefits and schools that bring them the headcount for their businesses. Will you sacrifice your family values and the strength of character that comes from these beliefs that built this nation for their jobs ?

At Bryant school the students eat free food all day during time that they used to learn something. So they are learning something only it isn’t math which you used to teach while they are now eating their breakfast and doing their exercises. They’re learning a socialist mind set which will do them in as surely as the comprehensive sex teaching which will sexualize them early and throw them into moral relativity.

When she runs again, she will no doubt tell the civic leaders at public events that she isn’t running on agenda, that she supports our schools and the levies they run, and that no, she really isn’t against poor children. But she is—she always has been—and she always will be.

She closes her diatribe with her last lie of this campaign:

America will wake up but unfortunately for Helena we are in the depths of despair for now.

As it turns out, the majority of Helenans (as evidenced by last night’s results) are quite happy with how things turned out. We’d do well to remember just who this candidate is next time.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is a seventeen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

37 Comments

  • Wow, although I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised. I’m sure one of Barb Rush’s many supporters crafted this thing of beauty.

  • So Barbara Rush is consoling herself by saying “no one even got 50%.” I can appreciate that math may not be her strong suit but does she not realize that this was a four-way election in which every voter was allowed to vote for 2 candidates? If you average the votes for the Myhre/Prezeau ticket versus the Rush/Renshaw ticket, the outcome is 57% to 43%. And under the “reality-based math” category, did she forget about Libbi Lovshin’s victory? In the only pure head-to-head matchup, Lovshin won 55% to 45% over the candidate from the Rush/Sticht/Renshaw slate. Barbara Rush calls a double-digit spread “eek[ing] [sic] out a victory.” That’s like saying the guy who smoked you in the 400 meters “eked out a victory” because he didn’t lap you. (Think about it.)

    As for her crusade against feeding poor children, maybe she can amuse herself in between losing elections by sneaking into the Bryant school cafeteria and snatching half-pints of milk from some kindergarteners. For most people, the phrase “stealing candy from a baby” is just a metaphor; for Barbara Rush, it’s a quest. (As long as the baby is from a poor family.)

    I thought her comment to the IR was as acrimonious as a losing candidate could get but clearly all she needed was some time to really churn the bile. There are deposed despots who accepted the people’s will and left the stage with more grace and less rancor than this woman.

    Stay classy Babs.

  • http://www.helena.k12.mt.us/images/documents/curriculum/HealthCurriculum/K12FinalHealth.pdf
     
    On page 45 of the original draft of the new Helena Sex Ed curriculum, it explains to 6th graders that sexual gratification may occur in any/all parts of your body (including the anus) and it may occur from a whole assortment of wonderful options, ranging from the fingers, tongue, or foreign objects, etc.

    Montana democrats appear to think that it is the school’s job to teach a sixth grader that if they feel compelled to shove a tobasco bottle up their ass, well that’s perfectly acceptable behavior.  OH, but they know that they have to stealth this by those silly, unenlightened Montana parents, so they need to develop the entire cirriculum in secret with no parental input. 

    You people, simply put, are disgusting, deranged, dishonest and vile.  I would love to hear ANYONE defend that portion of the cirriculum, simply so that I could make sure my children never come into contact with you. 

    This issue is far from over. 

    • Funny story about how that’s not actually  what the curriculum says.   It merely describes such acts as being ‘intercourse’.  You’d be surprised how many kids in middle school are experimenting with these behaviors, for a variety of reasons.  So, what’s better – that they believe them to be ‘not intercourse’ and safe, or that they understand that sex acts besides vaginal intercourse exist and have their own consequences? 

    •  “Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal,oral, or anal
      penetration; using the penis, fingers, tongue, or objects”  Is the wording you were too afraid to quote directly, despite knowing the page number, because it certainly doesn’t say anything about the acceptability of any sexual behavior. 

    • WE ALL LOST.  Or are you going to celebrate that educational milestone of having children learn about jamming foreign objects up their asses as a means of sexual gratification. 

      This is not about winning or losing.  This is about raising children and having a shred of decency.  What kind of monster are you?????

      • Two things.

        1) Consider talking to someone about your personal issues related to this curriculum. No teacher in this district will teach what you are suggesting they will, but your fascination with certain specific elements suggests some repression you may want to think about.

        2) I’m the kind of monster who believes that children should be safe and healthy.

  • It is not a fascination.  It is the exact opposite- only your kind appears to be fascinated with its merits. 

    Unlike you, I am able to see a veiled agenda when it stares me in the face.  If you haven’t already, you should read Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  You’ll then understand that in the eyes of certain people, 60 pages of normal cirriculum (and I’m being overly generous) is worth it to cover up the true objective.  Alinsky dedicated his book to the devil, and even CNN knows that the democratic leadership has run with his theories, embraced his cynicism and they are more than happy to lie, cheat and steal their way into power. 

    Have you read Saul Alinsky’s books?

    And as far as teachers go, only an idiot would assume what you do after a small cabaal of fanatics went to such great lengths conceal their true intentions.  Why was the curriculum hidden from parents for TWO YEARS??  Are you a parent? 

    • They wrote the whole curriculum to hid one sentence clarifying that oral sex is in fact sex?   I guess that’s not so strange, since Ken Starr spent millions clarifying the same thing.  Trust me, sixth graders know what parts of their bodies feel good when touched, most of them have heard about non-vaginal sex and many will try it while in middle school.  It’s possible to have accurate information about sex without acting on that information.  Indeed, nothing is less of a turn on than hearing your health teacher describe what, when mentioned by your older friends (or in movies you weren’t supposed to watch), seemed so erotic.  

  • Saul Alinsky! I should have guessed that would come next. Don’t leave without playing the Soros card at least once.

    Look. The people who opposed the health curriculum had their chance–and the voters of Helena rejected them by a large margin. They know that teachers and other district employees are trying to keep kids healthy and safe, your irrational fears notwithstanding.

  • Do you realize how foolish you sound?  It’s like the true symbol of bigotry and prejudice.  Your highness needn’t be troubled by the likes of an author you don’t think should be discussed. 

    I’ve had his book for 15 years.  It sits on my shelf, and I reference things directly from it, but because you don’t think it should be discussed, you have no choice but to avoid the issue altogether and mock it.  Ironicallly, that’s exactly what Alinsky would recommend you do.

    So continue to demonstrate that you’re an intellectually bankrupt individual.  Continue to demonstrate that you can’t actually talk about real ideas.  You just sit back and live in your little world.  The scary part is that (according to your other post), it sounds like you’re very interested in education.  Are you actually an “educator?”

    And as for Soros, anyone with a brain and google knows that he’s out to hurt the U.S.  Which one of those are you missing?

    • Pogie isn’t even taking you seriously.  If you want to debate, debate the one of us who is foolish enough to argue back.  You have no point – the curriculum doesn’t say what you said it does.

  • I quoted the damn curriculum and your response was that teaching 11 year olds the benefits of foreign objects during sex keeps them safe.  You actually think it’s a good thing which is all I need to know, and your most substantive reply is to insinuate that I have some kind of mental problem. 

    Messinger’s concerns over his very own agenda are obvious.  He hid the curriculum from the public for two years.  Sounds like the mark of someone who really cares about “the children.”  And you don’t even address this. 

    I bring up Alinsky and you don’t provide a meaningful response.  A man who is a stallwart of modern liberal democrat thinking and who did exactly as I said.  And your response is a non response because you don’t care if your side gets all their inspiration from someone who dedicates a book to Satan.  In your world, it probably improves one’s credentials.

    I ask if you’re an educator and you won’t respond.  Why not?

    It’s very instructive (and scary) to know that people like you exist.  You don’t have to worry about me reading your trash anymore.  It’s one thing to have opinions, but you’re nothing but a cheap, prejudiced, leftist hack.  Nothing presented will ever even cause two of your sinapses to fire. 

    Good luck with your stupid rants.  I’ve seen enough to know that there is no point talking to you. 

    • You didn’t quote the curriculum, is the thing.  You say what you think it says, but that’s not what it says at all.  It defines intercourse.  It is no more encouraging the behavior than the Oxford English Dictionary, in that all it does is provide a definition. 

      Your entire point starts out with a lie.  That you subsequently bring up irrelevant authors is unimportant.  You have one other point – perhaps Dr. Messinger did in fact try to avoid controversey and just get the curriculum passed.  No man’s a saint, and I’m certainly not here to write Bruce’s hagiography.  But with the curriculum being completely open, a majority of Helena voters agreed that it was acceptable.  Thus, the original point – you lost, and the community doesn’t stand behind your lies and paranoia. 

  • I’m quoting the original draft of the curriculum.  I’m quoting what Messinger tried to pass behind the backs of the parents.  Get the original draft.  They compromised only after they realized that people had caught onto their plan.  I was in the room when it was discussed.

  • quote: Verb: Repeat or copy out (a group of words from a text or speech), typically with an indication that one is not the original author or speaker:

  • I want to express some appreciation to this writer just for rescuing me from this particular instance. Right after checking throughout the search engines and obtaining techniques that were not helpful, I assumed my life was well over. Existing without the presence of approaches to the issues you’ve sorted out through your main article content is a serious case, as well as those which could have in a wrong way affected my career if I had not encountered the blog. Your personal talents and kindness in handling a lot of things was precious. I don’t know what I would have done if I had not discovered such a solution like this. I can also at this time look ahead to my future. Thanks a lot so much for the skilled and effective guide. I will not be reluctant to suggest your web blog to anybody who ought to have direction about this topic.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: