Police Officers FIRED for being TEA Party Members

Hey, think of it this way, if the police officers win the lawsuit they will get millions of dollars paid to them by those responsible right? Those responsible will lose their jobs and any pensions or other benifits they have coming right?

No you say?

Who pays then, oh that would be the taxpayers. Would they lose their jobs or benefits? Of course not, they are protected government officials.

Oh well, everyone keep blaming the Tea Party folks, they are the ones with the power. Oh wait, they are not.

Gotcha, so nothing will change, everything will continue as is and we will have ignorant folks still denigrating the movement against an out of control government, because they believe everything they hear from the propagandists in the MSM.

reply to post by solidshot


Actually it started decades ago, with people being fired or blacklisted because they were suspected of being communists.

We really need more information on this. I find it hard to believe that the mayor would be so bold as to fire people simply because they support the tea party.

Didn't the founder of the Tea Party come out recently to say "Screw the Tea Party!" ?

He said they are no longer about ending the Fed, and infact every meeting he goes to these days has decended into the typical republican idiot tripe about "Guns, Gays and God".

I dont know the intracacies of this instance, however I wouldn't alow cops to attend such meetings either, and when you work for the state - tough titties.

reply to post by nightbringr


NAFTA was negotiated by Brian Mulroney, a conservative; he had a majority and was able to push the bills through. But you are corrected; Chretien was PM when it was finally ratified.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Oh please, cry me a river.
You are NOW concerned? The T.E.A. Party had nothing to do with NAFTA. Democrats and Republicans, yes.
You watch too much television.

Anything that affects the political climate of North America has to do with NAFTA, especially if these people gain power. Not only that but the US is the most hostile nation on earth and it is proven that warmongers gain leadership through deceit and use it to conduct agendas. It is more imperative than ever for foreign powers, who strive for internationalism (ie the UN), to make the US understand that it can no longer continue this path of massacre.

PS I don't watch TV anymore because it is all manufactured garbage, pure and simple.

HAHAHA is this post a joke? There is no "Tea Party". The "Tea Party" is the Republican Party. How people can not see that is really beyond me.

Actually the TEA party is a neo-conservative social movement that involves republicans (because they are leading neocons), but has no leadership. Therefore it is a libertarian movement. For those who don't know what "libertarianism" is, it's organized anarchy, not so much some form of "liberty".

The "Tea Party" represented NOTHING of what you posted about. You know who does? The Republican Party.

From the videos and information and lectures on the TEA party that I have observed, it is quite clear that this is a radical neo-conservative group that has militia support and has even called for some senators to be "taken out".

Cry me a river x2! You go on to state that Stephen Harper is a pawn of the USA, and state NAFTA as being the reason why. Do you have any idea how long Stephen Harper has been in office and who was in when NAFTA was signed? If i remember correctly, Chretian was in power and it was a LIBERAL government. You mentioned somthing about having a political degree? Go back to school, son.

You're assuming way too much, "son". I'm quite aware of what NAFTA is; its origins are from the 1980s when Mulrony implemented the Free Trade Act, along with a lot of US integration into our society, politics and resources. He was the same ass who decided to sell off our resources that Trudeau nationalized.

Harper is clearly pro-American. He wanted us to allow the failure of the US missile shield on our territory; he wanted us to go to Iraq right beside the US; he supports globalization. He was also the leader of a Canadian neo-conservative think tank.

And I never said such thing of having a political degree, though I am certainly working on it and just by chance I have leading Canadian political scientists teaching me.

While i do agree we sold ourselves out by signing NAFTA, it was not the Conservatives. I personally see the TEA party as being a right-wing reaction to a brutally socialist agenda by the current administration. Obama is spending good money after bad and expanding government when the US deficit is at an all time high and i honestly do not see how it can go on. The US needs a responsible government who will reign in spending and they need it now or i do not see how they will survive. Socialism breeds laziness and spends beyond its means.

Your assessment of socialism is completely wrong. Also is your idea that Obama has somehow tried to implement socialist policies. How is it socialist when "Obamacare" forces Americans to buy private health insurance or face penalties? Unemployment/Underemployment in the US is around 17.5 percent, its infrastructure is crumbling (ie paved roads are being replaced with gravel), and poverty is huge considering most people cannot afford basic neccessities. The US can only go in three ways to solve this; turn into an ultra-conservative empire, turn socialist, or collapse. Take your pick.

Please note:

The TEA Party is now officially associated with the far-right racist group the "English Defence League" here in the UK. This should give you all an indication of where the TEA Party is NOW, even if it did start off as a good idea and a noble cause.

Finally, can you lot please drop the nasty attitudes to each other? It's politics, not personal hate-flinging.

The Revenant.

reply to post by The Revenant



Had this discussion in many other post's the EDL has members who happen to be Sikh Indian, Afro Caribbean and of many other races, so would you like to provide proof that they are racist?

Sounds to me like this is more of a budgetary and police force manning issue.

Was Police Chief Fired for Tea Party Affiliation?

However, it is important to note that the validation of this story is still incomplete. Van Zandt newspapers, which cover West Tawakoni, reported on September 17 that the city council was considering measures to reduce the police force for reasons that were purely budgetary. As Larry Briscoe, the editor of the newspaper publishing group, reports: “The sticking point continued to be the number of police officers to retain after this month.” The vote of Mayor Yoho did, indeed, tip the balance to reduce the police force from five officers to three, but this was to comply with state statutory requirements to have a balanced budget and also to set tax rates to fit the budget. That periodical, which simply reported the discussions in an open meeting before the reported termination of Chief Yoho and Officer Beckett, presents a somewhat different picture — that the city council members and the City Administrator, Cloy Richards, were discussing ways to trim the city budget and Richards was directed to come back with revised proposals.

Whether the selection of the 2 officers included their involvement in the Tea Party movement isn't clear.

Deny ignorance.

Lawsuit? 1st amendment?? The constitution guarantees your right to free speech, not your right to be a policeman.

www.thenewamerican.com...

However, it is important to note that the validation of this story is still incomplete. Van Zandt newspapers, which cover West Tawakoni, reported on September 17 that the city council was considering measures to reduce the police force for reasons that were purely budgetary. As Larry Briscoe, the editor of the newspaper publishing group, reports: “The sticking point continued to be the number of police officers to retain after this month.”

www.vanzandtnewspapers.com...

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:14:00
West Tawakoni Returns
Larry Briscoe, Editor

The West Tawakoni City Council could still not firm up next year’s budget Tuesday night at another meeting that was emotional and at times contentious. Before it was over, City Administrator Cloy Richards was directed to prepare another budget proposal to consider at a workshop and special meeting next week.
The legal clock is ticking since the city is required by state law to have a budget approved and a tax rate set before the end of September. Another public hearing and two votes must be taken by that deadline.
The sticking point continued to be the number of police officers to retain after this month.

Nothing to see here

reply to post by solidshot


They can still be racist against Muslims.

reply to post by solidshot


if this is true then both will be able to easily get their job back. government employees can't be fired this easily, especially for exercising their freedom of speech.

Originally posted by damwel
Lawsuit? 1st amendment??

The constitution guarantees your right to free speech, not your right to be a policeman.

funny you say that. the distinction you propose was called the "rights/privileges doctrine" and went out of favor in the 20th century.

the reason its so funny is the statement "right to free speech but not to be a police man" is exactly the old-timey famous quote that a lot of judges held on to before the doctrine was overturned.

now a days, if you are a government employee (including a police man) then there are constitutional limitations on why the government can fire you. freedom of speech is one of the limitations. and yea, government employees can sue if they are fired for constitutionally suspect reasons.

here....

you'll enjoy reading this

notice within the first few sentences:

In 1892, Justice Holmes, speaking for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, trenchantly dispatched the petition of a policeman who had been fired for violating a regulation which restricted his political activities:[1] The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.

dude, you might just be a reincarnated arch-conservative judge. not a bad thing.

Well I disagree. The only rights you can have as a government employee here in Ohio are the contract rights you get from the union. Ohio is an employment at will state and you can be let go for any reason that isn't illegal. Illegal reasons are race, religion, color, familial status and a couple others. Federal law I can't quote you but if this state in question is an employment at will state they could be fired because their new boss doesn't like blue eyes and it's completely legal and they will not win a lawsuit on that grounds.

edit: lol well I could be. I did study law in college.

Originally posted by solidshot
reply to post by The Revenant

 

Had this discussion in many other post's the EDL has members who happen to be Sikh Indian, Afro Caribbean and of many other races, so would you like to provide proof that they are racist?

Here's the evidence. Dispute away.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Now THAT is racism.

Rev.

reply to post by damwel


yea, i gotta disagree right back. employment at will is dead in the public sector. if you have a union that hasn't bargained a 'just cause' provision then you have a seriously incompetent union. there's no way these cops aren't protected, although, we're both speaking about either our own personal experience or generalizations. you make a good point about unions and we would have to actually do research to see if the police have a coa. but the blanket statement that you have 'no right to be a police officer' is no longer good law anywhere. employment at will sure, but title vii, pda, nlra, etc etc etc etc, one of those limiting things is the constitution. public sector employees have a property interest in their job by default and i can't imagine a union bargaining OUT of a property interest and back into employment at will. the blanket statement that started this conversation about 'no right to be a police officer' is so unlikely to be the case in this day and age, and in this case, that i'd feel comfortable betting $1000 right now that they're either covered by some kind of just cause provision or at the very least that this rights/privleges distinction doesn't apply to them.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
They can still be racist against Muslims.

Last time I checked, Muslim wasn't a race. I believe that the term "Muslim" means a follower of the Islamic religion. It has nothing to do with race.

reply to post by Maxmars


I don't really see the difference between a story reported in the media and a story reported in a blog. I am not sure, exactly, which one to trust the most.

According to the media there is no oil in the gulf, the Chevy Volt is all electric, and the various wars we are in are being won.

I think this should have stayed in the alternative news forum because that is exactly what it is... alternative. The fact that 'credentialled' media outlets didn't have a story initially may give it more credibility.