Christian Party

Patricia McAllister

Anti-semite?

"Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one."

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/14/yet-more-overt-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/

Why is it ok for Jews to insult Whites, but it's not ok for a person (a Black woman teacher to boot) to simply state the truth about who controls the Federal Reserve and how many times Jews have been run out of countries for such practices?

Why is it ok for Jews to claim that Wasps control Wall Street, but you can get FIRED for saying that Jews control Wall Street?

Does everyone on this forum really support such a double standard?

What do you think THAT means for YOUR right to free political speech which our Founding Fathers spilt BLOOD to protect?

Isn't it self-evident that if you agree with the LAUSD to restrict her right to free speech, that YOU are NEXT?!

Here's what Superintendent John Deasy stated today:

As Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), I want to emphasize that we condemn the remarks made recently by Patricia McAllister.

Her comments, made during non-work time at a recent protest rally, were her private opinions and were not made in the context of District services. At LAUSD, we recognize that the law is very protective of the freedom of speech rights of public employees when they are speaking as private citizens during non-working time.

I further emphasize to our students, who watch us and look to us for guidance, to be role models and to represent the ideals by which LAUSD lives, that we will never stand for behavior that is disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory.

As a day-to-day substitute teacher, Ms. McAllister was an at-will employee. As of today, she is no longer an employee of the LAUSD.

Oh, really?

Why don't WE fire HIM for his foul mouthing (disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory) of Patricia? I find his language to be far more disgusting than HERS!

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/10/18/breaking-la-unified-school-district-fires-teacher-who-made-anti-semitic-remarks-at-occupy-demonstration/

Most people I know agree with her.

Of course NONE of them can say that publicly, and many teachers who've agreed publicly HAVE been fired.

I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they spilt blood to protect YOUR free political speech. I would rather see the superintendent be fired for violating her right to free speech, than letting hm get away with firing her.

LAUSD Teacher Fired after Anti-Semitic Comment on Camera: MyFoxLA.com

The following Tuesday, she was fired from her post as a substitute teacher. LAUSD superintendent John Deasy released a statement yesterday that emphasized the district's condemnation of McAllister's remarks and announced her dismissal.

In the release, Deasy acknowledged her right as a citizen to air her views but emphasized a teacher's responsibility to serve as a role model for students.:

Her comments, made during non-work time at a recent protest rally, were her private opinions and were not made in the context of District services. At LAUSD, we recognize that the law is very protective of the freedom of speech rights of public employees when they are speaking as private citizens during non-working time.
I further emphasize to our students, who watch us and look to us for guidance, to be role models and to represent the ideals by which LAUSD lives, that we will never stand for behavior that is disrespectful, intolerant or discriminatory.

UPDATE: The Anti-Defamation league released a statement on Wednesday applauding Superintendent Deasy and the LAUSD for taking a stand against McAllister's anti-semitic remarks. While the ADL acknowledges that McAllister's views represent just a tiny fraction of the Occupy Los Angeles movement, Los Angeles regional director Amanda Susskind notes, "regardless of how 'fringe' these statements may seem, they have found a large audience on the Internet, and should be denounced as loudly as possible as unacceptable expressions of anti-Semitism."

This clown Jeff Michael on Studio 11 LA JUST COULD NOT WAIT to shut her up, and kept on whining at Susan to try to get her to terminate the interview.

WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? He then accused her of "hate", even though she SAID she hates no one.

THAT is unconscionable for a supposed TV "reporter".

The other clown they interviewed, PJ, said "there will always be signs that perpetuate hate".

Where in the .ell does it look to you like this HATE is coming from? Isn't it from the mouth of PJ herself!??

Testing Whether the Government has Violated the First Amendment Rights of Employees
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/employpunishment.html

1. Is the employee on the government payroll? (If not, the First Amendment generally will not apply and the employee will be left to contractual or statutory remedies (e.g., "whistleblower" law), if any.)

2. Has the employee been punished for his or her speech in a non-trivial way, such as being discharged, demoted, or transferred? (If not, the courts are unlikely to consider the First Amendment claim.)

3. Did the expression for which the employee was punished relate to a matter of "public concern?" (If not, "absent the most unusual circumstances" (Connick), the courts will not consider the claim. Courts should look at the "whole record" to determine whether the expression concerns a matter of interest to the general public. Whether expression relates to a matter of public concern does not depend upon how it is communicated--whether privately or publicly.)

4. If the government says that it had additional reasons for punishing the employee that do not relate to the employee's expression on matters of public concern, would those additional reasons have resulted in the same punishment that the employee suffered? (Unless the expression on a matter of public concern was a "but for" cause of the punishment--but for that expression the employee would not have been punished as he or she was--the employee loses on the First Amendment claim. The government, however, has the burden of proof of showing that the other reasons would have produced the same punishment. Doyle)

5. If the employee's speech did relate to a matter of public concern, is the government's ability to "efficiently provide services" nonetheless adversely affected in a substantial way? (If so, the employee is out of luck.)

6. With respect to political affiliation of public employees, the Court asks whether party affiliation is an "appropriate requirement" for the position, taking into account such factors as whether the employee makes important policy decisions or is in a position to thwart the policy directives of superiors. If not, the First Amendment prohibits consideration of political affiliation in either hiring, promotion, or discharge decisions (Branti, Rutan).

Patricia McAllister

Anti-semite?

Testing Whether the Government has Violated the First Amendment Rights of Employees http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/employpunishment.html

Loading comments…

Testing Whether the Government has Violated the First Amendment Rights of Employees
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/employpunishment.html