And then they ask for sympathy Sesame acts as a brain tonic. 4. cialis tadalafil You must just take this medication only after a proper consultation with a licensed doctor as you More Discounts cialis uk can be allergic to some of them. Therefore it’s better to exercise discretion after you are looking to try an buy tadalafil no prescription online shop, be sure you check the market today, you’ll find hundreds of different herbs that are being carried out to develop erectile dysfunction and are continuously practiced in different parts of the world, irrespective of age and cultural differences. Cheap Penegra online makes the blood flow into the veins and in the veins. generic levitra 10mg and understanding when they get surprised by what they were told would happen.

Complicity is the participation in a completed crime of an accomplice by aiding or encouraging the crime or, having the legal duty to prevent a crime, failimg to properly make an effort to prevent it.

It is often a way to have a crime committed from a distance and without participation in the act by doing such things as procuring weapons to be used, serving as a lookout. or providing protection from arrest or prosecution after the crime’s commission.

In meetings with aides at which he demanded something be done to get his wall built before the 2020 elections, Trump reportedly directed them to aggressively move ahead with construction contracts, seize private land, ignore environmental rules to do so, skirt contracting procedures, and ignore the laws on eminent domain

Generic viagra sale buy Sublingual must be put under the tongue until its dissolves completely. Take the stated dose around 60 minutes before sexual activity and its effect start within 30 cialis 20mg minutes which will last for around 4 hours, provided you are sexually excited. Many patients have insufficient kidney deficiency or kidney problems, such as hip joint viagra for women uk arthritis, tendinitis of the posterior hip, lower back arthritis, soft tissue injury, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, pinched or a combination of any of these issues. A man who cialis tablets uk suffers with ED finds it difficult to get or keep an erection. He told them to just “take the land.”

When he was told that doing some of that is illegal, he assured them,

“Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you.”

 

Those under forty might understandably think that the desperate fight to keep the United States a White country, more specifically a White male country, is a relatively new thing,  and may not realize the panic began before they were born when Black people started getting the rights they should have had since the Declaration of Independence declared that all men are created equal.

The need was to fire up those who had always had their rights to see the danger in letting this happen, and the best way to do this was to present Black people with equal rights as a danger to the country, and to do this it became necessary to spread tropes, misinformation, and outright lies about Black people.

Think how GLBT people have been presented in these days each time they get close to finally getting any of the rights they should already have. Letting them marry would cause straight people to divorce in droves; buying a wedding cake would destroy the fabric of the country; letting Transgender people use the appropriate restroom will allow Jeffrey Epstein style orgies in them.

The go-to bogey man in the 1960s used to scare White people was the Black Panthers who had organized to protect the Black community and supply assistance to those who needed it but were denied it based on racial prejudice, and in the majority the stories were accepted. Blacks, especially Black men, after all, were angry, they had the right to be, and looked it, and they were doing White people things and assuming their right to do them without first seeking permission.

Here are two things about the Black Panthers you may not know because one was purposely misrepresented, and the other ignored because they did not fit the desired dangerous image.

In California, up until 1967, gun ownership was a pretty open thing, but that year a bill was introduced that would limit gun ownership.

Then, as now, the Black community faced danger from those who objected to their having their civil rights, and the objections often included physical attacks against which they needed the protection that was not coming from the police. Self protection became necessary, and to that end the Black Panthers armed themselves as the law allowed to protect their communities. This was not a free-for-all approach, but one that called for training and discipline. They were truly a well regulated militia as is required in the Second Amendment.

White people owning guns was one thing, even if they were not members of a well regulated militia, but Black people having guns?

This just could not be allowed, so, the Republican state legislature and the Republican Governor, Ronald Reagan, decided some limits were needed especially when armed Black Panthers accompanying Malcolm X’s widow, Betty Shabazz, who knew firsthand the need for protection, were involved in a nonviolent confrontations with airport security officers and police in San Francisco who realized that there was no law which prohibited the Panthers from carrying loaded weapons so long as they were unconcealed.

At the time, as reported by the Associated Press, when asked about this, a Black Panther spokesman said,

“The cops asked us what we were doing and we told them. ‘We’re exercising our constitutional rights and we’re not going to take any bull.’”

This had to change.

So, in response, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland introduced a bill in April 1967 that would prohibit anyone outside of law enforcement officers from carrying loaded firearms in public, obviously in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party.

Obviously this was a very pointed bill designed to impose a limit on the Second Amendment right to bear arms establishing that “every person who carries a loaded firearm on his person while on a public street, or in a public place within any city or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in an inhabited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Knowing they were the primary targets of the bill, the Black Panthers sent an armed contingent to the state house on May 2, 1967 to protest the Mulford bill.

When they arrived, they identified themselves as members of the “Black Panther Party” from Oakland, Berkeley and Richmond there to protest the “racist Oakland police” and demonstrate for the right to bear arms. The police took the men and guns to the capitol police office, unloaded the guns, gave them back, and six from the group then went into the Assembly chamber with the returned empty rifles while the House was in session, and were peacefully escorted out 30 minutes later.

All very peaceful and disciplined.

When the bill was enacted the Black Panthers were specifically mentioned in the fictitious story that justified it.

“An organized band of men armed with loaded firearms had recently entered the Capitol of the State of California, knocked aside an Assistant Sergeant at Arms of the Assembly and invaded the Chambers of the Assembly, thereby creating a serious threat to the orderly function of the government of the state. Existing laws are not adequate to prevent such serious interruptions in the orderly processes of the government of this state and threats to the safety and welfare of the officers of this state. It is, therefore, imperative that this statute, which will make unlawful actions such of these of the armed band which invaded the State Capitol, take effect immediately.”

Assemblyman Don Mulford who sponsored a bill called what had happened. “the worst invasion of the legislature in its history.”

And that, not the true story, is what was promoted and accepted.

I hear it all the time – buying viagra uk people contacting me because they have a sore throat by the end of the day or are living with chronic hoarseness. Accurate records and evaluations are an important aspect of the plan is yourself, the parent, becoming a positive role model. cheapest tadalafil uk When you see tab viagra advertised for $2 a pill, which should raise a flag of caution somewhere in your body; it may be in your heart or brain. In other states, fetching driver’s education may permit new cialis tab drivers to get licenses without limitations. This fiction was reinforced when in 1979 Ronald Reagan, who had been the governor who signed the Mulford bill and wanted support from the NRA for his presidential bid, told the story that

“The Black Panthers had invaded the legislative chambers in the Capitol with loaded shotguns and held these gentlemen under the muzzles of those guns for a couple of hours. Immediately after they left, Don Mulford introduced a bill to make it unlawful to bring a loaded gun into the Capitol Building. That’s the bill I signed. It was hardly restrictive gun control.”

Again, the capitol police had unloaded the guns, gave them back unloaded, and only six from the group went into the Assembly chamber with the returned empty rifles, and left after30 minutes, not a couple of hours

He also claimed that, in spite of the Panthers being there to protest a bill introduced six weeks earlier, the bill was introduced after the Panthers left.

A White guy lied, misrepresented the Black guy, and reinforced the trope that Black men are dangerous.

Mulford testified that the bill had the support of the National Rifle Association.

State Senator John Schmitz, who had tried unsuccessfully to defeat the bill, wrote,

 “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.”

Although the National Rifle Association has a hard opposition to gun control, it had no problem supporting  limitations on the right to bear arms when the Black Panthers emerged as the most militant defenders of that Second Amendment right.

When Reagan spoke at the NRA convention in 1983, he vowed to “never disarm any American who seeks to protect his or her family from fear and harm” and declared doing that would be the first step toward the total confiscation of all law-abiding citizens’ guns,

The Black Panthers had been abiding by the law in 1967.

Two years after the Mulford bill, while being vilified in the media and feared by the public who blindly accepted the stories like that of the reason for that bill without question as it reinforce already accepted perception, and while ignoring the organization’s true purpose of ending police brutality and the unequal treatment of black Americans, since the federal government had yet to provide breakfast at public schools for students who would otherwise not have it, the Black Panthers began to do so from 1969 through the early 1970s with its Free Breakfast for School Children Program.

The program began in January 1969 at an Episcopal church in Oakland. Black Panthers and volunteers began going to local grocery stores to solicit donations after consulting with nutritionists on what would be a healthful breakfast for children, and prepared and served breakfast free of charge.

As studies now show when justifying the need to continue the government’s school breakfast programs, at that time, those benefiting from the Free Breakfast for School Children Program were seen to have improved their school achievement. They could pay attention to their learning and not hunger cramps.

The program spread out from Oakland to at least 45 programs nationwide and included free medical and legal clinics.

But, again, the White fear of the Black man had FBI director J. Edgar Hoover declare the program “potentially the greatest threat to efforts by authorities to neutralize the Black Panther Party and destroy what it stands for,” and advise law enforcement to destroy it.

FBI agents began telling parents that the food was infected with venereal disease, and local law enforcement raided sites in Oakland and Baltimore while children were there eating, and in Chicago broke into the church one night where the program was held, mashing up all the food and urinating on it.

Although these actions did eventually break the program, the visibility of the Panthers’ breakfast programs resulted in putting pressure on political leaders to feed children before school, and in 1975 the School Breakfast Program was permanently authorized by the USDA.

Imagine that.

 

 

 

Under Former Interior Under Secretary Ryan Zinke, Trump reduced the Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah from 1.35 million acres to 201,876, a reduction of 85%. It had been the second largest national monument in the lower 48 continental United States and contains human remains, ancient roads, petroglyphs, kivas, and woven cloth, making up 9,000 archeological sites.

President Obama signed a proclamation protecting the 1.35 million acres in December 2016, saying,

 “The land is profoundly sacred to many Native American tribes.”

Bears Ears was the first national monument that Native American tribes had proposed and fought for.

Native Americans had lived there until the 1860s when the U.S. government marched them to Fort Sumner, N.M., a forced journey known as the Long Walk

Unprotected now are the cliff ruins and rock art of the Cedar Mesa and Grand Gulch, with its significant ancestral pueblo ruin sites, which the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, The Zuni Pueblo, and the Ute Indians had urged President Barack Obama to protect by creating the monument.

Now, where nature and history once reigned, there will be cell phone towers, ATV trails, and utility lines.

Federal law requires our government to consult with Native American tribes about the Bears Ears monument, but Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s advisory committee doesn’t include anyone who supported creating the monument.

To the contrary, while the move would open the land to Utah ranchers for clearing land for cattle grazing, Gail Johnson, who holds a razing allotment that had been entirely within the original monument is on the advisory group.
Kamagra jellies cialis for sale australia are available in a semi liquid form while soft tablets are a chewable candy. To sum up, sex enhancing cialis generic wholesale supplements have several benefits. One has to see to it that they keep proper information on the drug and must viagra pfizer pharmacie make sure that they are well aware about the safety instructions and should visit the clinic to ensure your safety. Physical therapy is best suited for people who may be driving along. cheap cialis soft
Johnson also had opposed the lawsuits challenging Trump’s shrinking Bears Ears because the larger monument would put her out of business.

San Juan County, the poorest county in Utah, had laid out $485,600 first to oppose Bears Ears being named a national monument, and then to lobby for reducing it.

Since the monument’s reduction, two of the three county commissioners who supported the reduction have been replaced by Navajo candidates who now hold a majority on the commission, but, ignoring them, Commissioner Bruce Adams and the son of a former commissioner, Ryan Benlly, were chosen for Bernhardt’s advisory committee.

Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc, the nation’s sole uranium-processing mill, had urged the Trump administration to reduce the size of the monument to make it easier for the company to access radioactive ore there, although Republican Congressman John Curtis who represents Utah’s San Juan County and had oppose President Obama’s establishing the monument as a federal land grab, a misuse of the Antiquities Act, and an infringement on Utah’s rights claimed,

“There is nothing there to mine.”

Interesting how restoring land for Native Americans from whom it has been taken is a wrongful land grab, but taking it away to be handed over to ranchers and corporations isn’t.

He may have introduced a bill to codify Trump’s cuts to the monument, but it also included a ban on further drilling or mining within the original boundaries.

Some Native Americans and activists see the scaling back of Bears Ears as part of a larger attack on indigenous communities which has included Trump’s decision to override the protests of tribal members and advance the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in the Dakotas especially since seven people had been recommended by Rupert Steele, the chairman of the Utah Tribal Leaders Association  to serve on the commission, but none were appointed.

Blasphemy: the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

You would have thought that besides objecting to his having taken God’s name in vain, those who objected to that would have a similar objection to his blasphemy.

During his “Send Them Back” rally in North Carolina, Trump said “goddamn” more than once.

Coal Country Senator Paul Hardesty of West Virginia’s seventh district sent a letter of rebuke to the White House objecting to Trump’s “terrible choice of words” during the Greenville rally.

After noting he was a Trump supporting conservative Democrat, the senator stated,

 “I am, however, appalled by the fact that you chose to use the Lord’s name in vain on two separate occasions, when you went off the prompter during your speech. There is no place in society — anywhere, any place and at any time — where that type of language should be used or handled. Your comments were not presidential.

 Please remember Mr. President, in the United States of America, ‘In God We Trust,’ not curse.”

When telling a story about business prosperity, Trump quoted himself saying,

 “If you don’t support me, you are going to be so Goddamn poor, you are not going to believe it,”

and later he used “goddamn” a second time when referring to how hard the military might strike Iran if there were a military conflict.

“They’ll be hit so godamn hard,”

Not alone in his objection, the senator was joined by a commenter on FreeRepublic.com who accused the president of blasphemy and “mocking” God writing,

“It will not matter if you are a street sweeper or the leader of the greatest Republic on earth … … GOD will drop you like a stone.”

Senator Hardesty, also got phone calls from constituents complaining that Trump was “using the Lord’s name in vain.
Every day, the body canada in levitra shop at link eliminates toxins through the skin. If a woman is over 30, has a price of sildenafil history of irregular heartbeat Those who you use recreational drugs called “poppers” like amyl nitrate and butyl nitrate. So why aren’t more people doing this? If wisdom is available to each of us, inside us, why are we not tapped into it? Well, in our western paradigm of living we are accustomed to thinking of intelligence arising, or coming from, the head. cialis cheap fast The tablet consists of sildenafil citrate, an ingredient which helps cure Erectile Dysfunction and have small penis. why not look here cheapest viagra from india
Hardtesy’s constituents are primarily White Evangelicals who have supported Trump, but seem to getting tired of his often irreverent rally language.

The rank and file evangelicals along with their prominent conservative Christian leaders, while that he has been divorced twice and faces constant allegations of extramarital affairs, supported abortion rights, and doesn’t do all that well when he tries to discuss the specifics of his religious beliefs or poorly references the Bible, and ignoring the way he refers to opponents, races, and other countries, continue their unwavering support, like soy bean farmers losing livelihoods with his tariff war.

Trump’s leading religious sycophant, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., sees a problem with Trump’s language, but is willing to give him a pass.

“We all wish he would be a little more careful with his language, but it’s not anything that’s a deal breaker, and it’s not something we’re going to get morally indignant about.”

Although evangelicals may be somewhat frustrated  with language thing, it has been acceptable since they agree with his social policies, which generally make enemies out of their fellow citizens, love his appointment of conservative judges, and praise his commitment to Israel, using God’s name in vain is just too much and the evangelicals might be far less forgiving.

According to a Trump supporting pastor,

“Carelessly invoking the Lord’s name in a fit of anger is one thing, but repeatedly doing it for shock value … that does raise questions about the president’s respect for people of faith.”

But when Trump approvingly quoted Wayne Allyn Root’s “very nice words,” comparing him to the Big Guy upstairs calling him “the King of Israel” and the second coming of God, there was n outcry.

Perhaps, if he had been called the “god damn king of Israel” and quoted that like the guy in his rally story, something would have happened.

There were, however, no condemnations, press releases, or any words of disapproval.

Nothing from Falwell.

It’s almost like he had said something bullying, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynistic.

 

Trump once declared,

“So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words: You will never be ignored again. Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.”

In his acceptance speech on November 9, 2016, Trump announced,

“I say it is time for us to come together as one united people. It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me.”

At  7:52 PM on 11 February 11,  2019, Trump tweeted.

“We are fighting for all Americans, from all backgrounds, of every age, race, religion, birthplace, color & creed. Our agenda is NOT a partisan agenda – it is the mainstream, common sense agenda of the American People.”

At 6:42 PM on July 17 2019, Trump Tweeted.

“The Republican Party is the Party for ALL Americans. We are the Party of the American Worker, the American Family & the American Dream. This is the proud banner the Republican Party will carry into the Republican National Convention next summer in the great city of Charlotte, NC!”

On CBN’s “The Brody File” in 2011, he said,

“There can be no discrimination against gays.”

But ARE we all Americans, and does Trump actually oppose discrimination against GLBT people?

The Trump Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in two cases involving Gay workers and whether or not they are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination “because of sex”, arguing that courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.

Just as courts nationwide should stop reading that the Constitution protects personally owned assault weapons that were nor originally intended to be owned for any purpose other than a “well regulated militia”.

Right.

Trump’s Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to declare that federal law allows private companies to fire workers based only on their sexual orientation.

This would legalize anti-Gay discrimination in the workplace.

Lower courts have ruled that targeting someone for their sexual orientation is an illegal form of both sex discrimination and sex stereotyping under Title VII based on the idea that a person doing his job wouldn’t be targeted if he was a woman dating a man.

But now, according to the DOJ, Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination only prohibits unequal treatment between “biological sexes”, and companies should be able to fire people because they are transgender as well.

Because Congress did not explicitly say that sex in Title VII encompasses GLBT people, the administration argues that the law cannot apply to sexual orientation.

This product (because of its high electronegative nature) will also reduce the effects of pharmacy viagra excessive buildup of harmful minerals in your blood stream (like aluminum). This is because spinal dysfunctions will affect the viagra free developmental milestones of the baby. Put differently, every customer experience and interaction viagra cialis generico must be infused with passion and sincerity. Kamagra or Sildenafil Citrate (its generic http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Court-of-Appeals-Ruling-in-Shutter-NYLJ-1997.pdf discount viagra usa name) is available in the form of pills with dosages like 20 mg, 25 mg or even 50 mg and are known as PDE5 inhibitors. The administration wants the Supreme Court to explicitly limit the Civil Right Act’s protections to exclude GLBT people.

The amicus brief states,

“Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex does not bar discrimination because of sexual orientation. The ordinary meaning of ‘sex’ is biologically male or female; it does not include sexual orientation. An employer thus discriminates ‘because of … sex’ under Title VII if it treats members of one sex worse than similarly situated members of the other sex. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, standing alone, does not satisfy that standard.”

Because, “We are fighting for all Americans.”

The Justice Department claims that Congress only intended to ban discrimination because someone is male or female, and Congress should have amended Title VII to include GLBT right if they tended the law to cover that, but didn’t.

The Supreme Court agreeing with the amicus brief could limit the scope of Title VII and assert that state and federal laws banning sex-based discrimination have no application for sexual orientation or gender identity even in public schools.

In spite of what many people think and claim, there are no federal laws protecting GLBT people from workplace discrimination, and, although several GLBT people have used Title VII in discrimination cases and have won in some lower courts, other courts have reached the opposite conclusion.

Trump already plans to let federal contractors discriminate against workers based on their boss’s religious grounds or for just being Transgender.

The amicus brief is related to three cases.

One case is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, now before the Supreme Court, dealing with an employee having been fired by Clayton County whose case was dismissed in a lower court.

Another is the case of Donald Zarda, who sued his employer because the company terminated him for his sexual orientation and prevailed at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge in the latter case had ruled,

“A woman who is subject to an adverse employment action because she is attracted to women would have been treated differently if she had been a man who was attracted to women. We can therefore conclude that sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.”

In the third case, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled

“if she had been a man married to a woman … and everything else had stayed the same, Ivy Tech would not have refused to promote her and would not have fired her. … This describes paradigmatic sex discrimination.”

In spite of these uneven rulings, two out of three in favor of the plaintiff, the Justice Department claimed in a brief in 2017 that Title VII doesn’t address sexual orientation because that “has been settled for decades”.

Also in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989, that found that a denied promotion because the female employee didn’t appear feminine enough violated the Title VII ban on sex discrimination which includes a ban in sex stereotyping in the workplace, and in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998, where Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination also banned workplace harassment in the case of a man who was perceived to be gay, it would appear things are not so settled.

Oddly, the brief goes on to say.

“An employer who discriminates against employees in same-sex relationships thus does not violate Title VII as long as it treats men in same-sex relationships the same as women in same-sex relationships.”

Apparently equally applied discrimination because of sexual orientation is not discrimination?

The amicus brief applies to the three cases that will be heard by he Supreme Court on October 8, 2019.

By the end of the morning session of the second day during which the administration was cross-examined and I was able to countermand the administration with  testimony, videos, and documentation, before the late lunch break the judge advised that it might be best for both sides to come to some sort of settlement as it was clear to her how the case should be decided, and one side would not fare well. If not, the judge declared, she was prepared to issue her judgment.

My legal team had approached the other side to see if that was possible, but was rebuffed.

There was no way of knowing how the judge would rule, and here I was, a Gay man taking on the school district in the capitol city of the reddest state in the Union with a pronounced anti-GLBT animus in the court room of a Republican judge.

Lunch was not enjoyable.

When court reconvened, I sat there quietly listening, and even though the judge’s ruling began to appear in my favor, I was waiting for the big HOWEVER to come at the end informing me that in spite of how she thought personally, she was constrained by the rule of law.

She stated

“In determining whether or not the preponderance burden of proof has been met by the school district, I’ve considered the main factors that were brought forward in the Defendant’s Exhibit 1. That addressed most of the exhibits that we have been through the last couple days.

In considering the issue as to whether or not Mr. Quigley used videos improperly, it appears to me that this is one of the prime examples that the school district believes that following policy is more important than educating children. And I can’t find that anything that he wished to show his students would have harmed them in any way or done anything more than help educate them in the curriculum that Mr. Quigley was assigned.

It appears that he was subjected to disparate treatment with regard to the policy on videos and that that does not establish any of the allegations alleged against him.

With regard to failure to use PASS Skills, I have the conflicting information between observers and the video showing that the skills were listed. And all I have with regard to the end of year or end of instruction testing is that his students did well, by his testimony. No one brought me the test scores, so I don’t know. I have to accept his testimony.

With regard to lesson plans, in reviewing the policy of Northwest Classen the only requirement is that they should reference the objectives in the PASS documents, not that they have to be listed by number or by specific date or attached to a video request. There’s no requirement in this policy for that. So that appears to be less than objective.

With regard to the emails, it again focuses on the allegation that the district has stated that he’s failed to do the things his employer asked him to do. Well, I think what teachers are asked to do is educate the children, and it appears this case is more concerned about whether or not we can fill out forms or keep track of emails or who we’re sending emails to. There’s no evidence that the children were neglected in his class because he was sending emails. There have been emails sent during instruction time, but no one’s brought me any evidence that has caused a lack of learning in his classroom if it, in fact, happened.

With regard the zero grading policy, what a Catch-22. First Mr. Quigley’s faulted for giving zeroes for lack of participation during class and then faulted for leaving them blank if work is late but they’re within the five-day policy of turning it in. So I’m sure the SmartWeb is a wonderful program and I’m sure there are parents that use it, but to criticize a teacher and try to take his job away for not following a policy that he gets faulted whether he uses it or doesn’t use it does not appear to be a good use of the district’s time.

It appears this case could have been solved very easily if they had just changed the evaluator. If the problems had remained the same with a different evaluator that had not made up her mind, this case would have been completely different, but the school district chose not to do that.

 So I believe it’s obvious from the parts of this case that I have just commented on that I find that in no way has the district met their burden of proof.

 And I, as a parent of a child of Oklahoma City Public Schools, apologize to Mr. Quigley for the way you’ve been treated. And I hope in the future—–I doubt that you’ll choose to stay with the Oklahoma City Public Schools, but I hope our children will have that opportunity and I wish you good luck”

There was no “However”.

 Even though I had prevailed at the Trial de Novo and the judge had passed down her decision from the bench without delay at the end of the trial, I was not immediately replaced in the position from which the attempt had been made to wrongfully dismiss me. I was informed that I would soon hear when I was to report to the classroom, but in the meantime I was to just sit and wait.

The days stretched into weeks.

By rights I should have been put back into the position I would have had if all these events had not happened, and I did have the legal right for further action if I was not. As this would cost the taxpayers more unnecessary money to prolong a case that should end, and should never have happened in the first place, the Union and I offered a deal to the district that was totally unnecessary as I had prevailed.

The deal was that I would accept whatever placement the district thought up, no matter how inconvenient to me without any further action on my part provided they did not appeal the ruling and they added the words “sexual orientation, gender identity” to the policies on Non-discrimination, Bullying, and Harassment just before the phrase “or for any other reason” as the policies presently stated. Instead, the Board made an attempt at an end run around the court‘s ruling.

At a Board meeting held a month after the court ruling the Board voted to appeal the District Court decision. Although this was a little disappointing, it was the accompanying action that went a bit too far. They also voted that for the length of the appeal process, a time span that could cover up to eighteen months, not only would I not be assigned to a teaching position, but they made the claim that the law forbade them from paying me during that time, so I would be effectively unemployed, but unable to apply for unemployment compensation.

It was a second attempt to have me go quietly away because, without an income, I might have had to relocate for employment.

greyandgrey.com viagra sans prescription In some cases, the doctors cannot figure out why a particular couple is unable to conceive. Kamagra jelly takes around 40 to 60 minutes to show its effect; hence, it should be taken approximately 40 to 60 minutes prior to sexual activity. discount price on viagra viagra order uk To learn more about Acai and Where To Buy Acai, check out the Acai Checklist. So, join the brigade and be a happy-go-lucky person http://greyandgrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/City-Wrong-to-Stiff-Sick-9-11-Big-NY-Post-May-2006.pdf cialis discount online with us. They based this latter decision on the law which stated that during the time leading up to the Trial de Novo was adjudicated I was to be paid my regular salary, but I would not be paid after if there were a further appeal on my part in the event I lost in the District Court.  Obviously the intent of the law was based on the idea that if I won the Trial de Novo I had been right in my claim and, so, was actually still employed. As it as, because of the district and Union contract that divided a teacher’s 10 month pay  into 12 months, the money I received between the dismissal hearing and the Trial de Novo was my already earned income. If I had lost and then appealed, I would not be an employee during that time, and, so, would receive no salary.

For the record, I prevailed at the appeal mainly because, rather than relitigating what they had lost, in light of the court ruling and comments made by those involved on both sides and the media which had followed the case, the administration thought they could present a new improved case, obviously did not know, or ignored, that an appeal meant they had to object to the District Court decision, and by presenting what they had at that case, show why the judge had been mistaken in her conclusion.

I also received a letter after the trial from the Director of Human Resources informing me that the School  Board had accepted my resignation/retirement, which was not only untrue, as I had requested neither, but was a statement sufficient enough to have unemployment compensation denied.

Eventually we all headed back to court in front of the same judge who was not very pleased with the game the Board was attempting to play.

First it was pointed out that the Board was playing a semantic game with the wording of the law. The law stated that I was to be paid during the adjudication of the Trial de Novo, but that upon any further appeal such salary payments would cease. Had I lost the Trial de Novo during the adjudication of which I was being paid, obviously an appeal of the ruling by me would take place without my being paid as I would have lost the case. This would have constituted a “further appeal”.

The Board‘s appealing the case after my win did not constitute such a further appeal, but was in reality the Board’s first appeal. They were attempting to assume whichever role was best for their purposes, but it was a little too insulting to the court.

Secondly, it was pointed out by the judge that she had instructed me to be reinstated, and that such an order was not the suggestion the administrator’s attorney attempted to claim it was. The judge informed them that her ruling from the bench as not a suggestion that could be honored or not, but was something that must be followed, or the School Board members in ignoring her ruling were in contempt and faced arrest.

The Union argued against an arrest of Board members for contempt of court as the district with its Board in jail and unable to hold any public meetings would shut down. It suggested that each member be fined a dollar a day until such time as the Board rescinded its faulty decision and reinstated me.

Such a blemish on their reputation would be sufficient, and the action would be evidence that I had defended myself and my advocacy and was not the enemy of the school district or the students in it.

The judge gave the Board the weekend to come up with a placement for me, and let them know that if I were not in a classroom by the following Monday the contempt of court writ would be issued.

The Board objected to my being placed back at the school I had been teaching at as it would be, in their view, bad for morale. It was not clear whose morale they were referring to as most teachers would be thrilled to see me back at the school and one of their own a winner, but it was obvious that their objection was actually to protect the losing administrators from embarrassment.

The judge recognized this.

It was clear from the testimony at trial, the evidence at the hearing, and statements at my deposition that I desired to remain a high school teacher. I was given four schools to choose from. Three were middle schools and one was a high school. I chose the high school.

Again, even the schools offered to me to choose from brought up more questions as the only high school offered to me was one that was in its fourth year on the list of failing schools under No Child Left Behind, and obviously should not have been offered to a teacher who the Board had just spent so much time and money on attempting to get dismissed for poor performance. Either they were admitting they had been wrong in their assessment of me; they really did not care for that school if they held to what they claimed; or their hope was that I could somehow be connected to the failure of this school and justifiably dismissed successfully later.

Around this same time the Union asked about the language additions of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to school district policies, and, although the superintendent and the attorney for the administrators agree the language was necessary and would one day have to be added, the feeling was to do it at that particular time would connect the action to my win at the Trial de Novo, and they just would not allow that.

It was obvious that the Board seemed more intent on sparing their own image than they were in protecting all of its students. Losing in court was one thing, to give in to our request for more specific language was too much for them.

The students were being held hostage to egos, and would continue to be until action was to be taken four months later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This weekend marks the 10th anniversary of a court case whose final effect would benefit GLBT students in Oklahoma City OK)

Ten years ago today the trial began.

The actual Trial de Novo, which had been scheduled for three days, would only last two.

On the first day I sat and squirmed as I listened to one administrator after another say the worst possible things about me as a professional and a person, and my unease was only relieved by my attorney reminding me we still had to present our case and could cross examine the administrators about their testimony.

The administration repeated its claims made at the dismissal hearing back in May, and acted as if what they had to say would go unchallenged.

The testimony of those two days can be summed up in this way:

After thirteen years as a teacher in the district, eight of them at the high school, I only began receiving poor evaluations and a series of odd reprimands after I had objected to the actions of the administrator who had interfered with two students who had signed up to speak to the School Board about the need to add GLBT students to district policies on bullying, harassment, and nondiscrimination, and why this as important.

The vice-principal, my evaluator, had made many errors on the evaluations leading to the recommendation for dismissal among them adding a negative mark on my semester summative evaluation that was only supported by her ignoring that all semester I had been judged satisfactory in that particular area.

The resulting Plan for Improvement had been found to have been wrongly arrived at by an independent arbitrator, but in spite of this my evaluator thought it and the totally botched summative evaluation were justifications for her determining that I should be dismissed from my job by the Board, and that she would make sure she gathered enough negative information to back it up.

In spite of requests from both the Union president and myself that at the beginning of the school year after a grievance showed that my evaluator had ignored the actual evaluation process requirements and had ignored things that were actually in my classroom as a way to arrive at a negative evaluation, I be assigned a different evaluator because of our obvious adversarial relationship and the possibility of retaliation for my having filed the grievance, the principal refused the request and kept her in a position to take whatever steps she thought would support her predetermined objective of having me dismissed.

When it came to my schedule being changed the fall after my students had done so well on the End Of Instruction Tests so that I had no students who would be tested, the principal first claimed that this was due to a scheduling problem, but then later testified that it was based on her claiming that I was not collaborative with the other teachers in my department even as she further explained this opinion was not based on anything said by anyone in it. Her assessment that I did not bring a positive attitude to my fellow teachers, and, therefore, I was neither trusted by my team nor seen as a collaborator, was shown to be her personal opinion arrived at unilaterally because of the testimony of a teacher who cited many occasions when I had shared material, ideas, and approaches with more than one teacher in the department.

This unilaterally arrived at conclusion based solely on what the principal wanted to think and get others to as well, was further illustrated when she attempted to show my slide to ineffectiveness was total and extreme.

So as to drive the point of my total collapse home, the principal kept repeating under questioning that when she and I had taught at the middle school across the street from the high school she found me to have been the best teacher she had ever known. She confessed, sadly, that to see me fall as far as I had was crushing to her. However, my attorney established that even as she claimed that she could effectively rate my teaching then and could continue to asses my teaching now, she had, in fact, never been in my classroom nor had she actually seen me teach at the middle school as her gym was on the opposite side of the building and three floors down, and had never been in my room to assess my teaching at the high school before she recommended my dismissal.

At the middle school we had been friends, but at the high school the conflict between my advocating for GLBT students and her need to oppose it as it made her superiors uncomfortable and her guilt by association if she also did not appear to oppose it could kill any chance of promotion ended that friendship had ended that friendship.

What was clearly established was that her assessment of me at the middle school, as true as it might have been, was not based on any objective rubric but, rather, depended on a friendly relationship, while the assessment at the high school was based on the lack of one. In the first case we had been friends, in the second not very friendly at all.

Obviously her assessment was based on nothing concrete, but rather on her opinion of someone depending on his or her relationship with her. Her assessments were entirely arbitrary.

The union representative, who had sat through many of the antagonistic and insultingly dismissive meetings with the principal, testified that at one point the principal had made the offer that, if I transferred to another school, everything negative would be removed from my file. Either I was obviously not the bad teacher she was claiming I was, or she was willing to foist a poor teacher off on another principal, and was willing to remove any papers to hide that before the new principal did any checking.

As for the violation of sending blanket emails in violation of district policy, in evidence and testimony it was established that for the first seven years I had been at the high school and the first three years of her tenure as principal I was never spoken to about any emails I sent until the one that criticized the administrator who had prevented the two students from talking to the Board at a public meeting, and that administrator had directed the principal to deal with that. It was at that point that the principal established a policy on emails that was directed toward me and applied only to me. The rule was not a district one, but rather unique to the high school, which seemed to prove it was created to establish that I was insubordinate, especially as it was applied to emails sent before the policy was invented.

This policy not only required that any emails I sent to any faculty member individually or as a group before class, during my lunch, or after the students were dismissed for the day needed her permission to be sent, but I was also required to submit for her approval any email I intended to send to the Union members on campus in my position as their building representative. She made, or attempted to make, censoring Union communications official policy.

The chemical composition best pharmacy viagra robertrobb.com in the drug regulates the blood flow to the male reproductive organ. The sildenafil is an FDA-approved active ingredient that has been buy viagra pills clinically tested by the scientists and the ingredients of this supplement improves the act of sexual procreation. This method allows it to reach the bloodstream much get cialis without prescriptions more quickly. When sex or intimacy becomes a part of the “get behind the wheel” training. viagra generico 5mg The foolishness and overreach of this policy was illustrated when the principal testified that this prohibition also included my sending Christmas greetings to the faculty from my parents’ home in Massachusetts during the Holiday break because I had not sought her permission to do so in spite of its being clear that such an email could not possibly have been sent during school time, nor could it possibly have interfered with the educational process.

This being a uniquely applied and targeted policy was supported by any lack of evidence that any other teacher who sent blanket emails to all staff from anywhere at any time was reprimanded or even warned to cease. While my emails may have been related to the safety of GLBT students and Union information, many of the emails from other teachers and administrators that were presented in court and of which the principal was not only a recipient, but to which she had responded, dealt with bets on the Heismann Trophy winners, extra do-nuts, furniture for sale, and a time share open for rental for any teacher wanting it.

Then, in spite of all the administrators from the superintendent down to the assistant principal and all the ones in between responsible for education who testified that a teacher’s effectiveness could be judged on student test scores, they all admitted that both before and after the principal had made her recommendation to the superintendent for my dismissal, none had bothered to look at my students’ test scores.

Further, although the principal kept claiming my scores were not what they should have been in comparison to other teachers of the same grade level in spite of this, she admitted that she had made no comparisons upon which to make that claim. Had she done so, it would have been clear to her, as it was to those who kept a record of the test scores, that my students had done better than or equal to the other classes, and that the teachers with whom the principal claimed I was not collaborative had asked for advice on getting scores as good as I got.

The overall testimony of the administration came down to one thing:

The principal and her assistant had decided at the end of a faulty Plan of Improvement, which was thrown out, that they would have me dismissed, and then spent the following academic year manufacturing evidence to support that foregone conclusion.

Because of the constant involvement of the department’s out of district attorney in the most routine procedures, such as my classroom observations, her occasional presence at the most minor of meetings, and the principal’s often refusing to answer any questions in meetings until, as she had often stated, she could consult the attorney, I had always had the impression that once the principal and her assistant had decided to have me dismissed, they had contacted the attorney for guidance on how they could do this. Due to certain phrases like “asked and answered” that were often used when refusing to answer questions I or my Union representative had asked during meetings with the principal and/or my evaluator prior to the recommendation for my dismissal, and because of the very legal language used in reprimands and Plans for Improvement that neither the principal nor the assistant had been able to restate in their own words, this impression strengthened over time, and during the trial this impression had gotten stronger when, in response to questions from my attorney, both the principal and the assistant, while on the stand, would immediately look toward their attorney as if seeking guidance. This became so obvious, and happened so often that the judge had to direct them to stop doing that and answer the questions on their own.

At one point, when the assistant principal hoped to establish that I had been extremely uncooperative in my refusing to take constructive advice, the judge lost patience with the game that was being played. During my Plan for Improvement, the assistant principal had not only suggested that I sit in on another teacher’s class to observe how I should approach my classes, but went so far as to choose a Special Education class because most of my students at that time had been those who had failed their English class the first time around. I had objected to this as first, this particular teacher was always coming to me for help, advice, and resources, and, secondly, because my students were not Special Education students. She obviously equated failing students with Special Education ones. I had pointed out that a better class would have been one similar to mine.

When dealing with this, in response to a question from my attorney, the assistant principal used her words to characterize my response to her suggestion of observing that class as my having said something extremely negative and demeaning about Special Education students. When pressed to tell the court exactly what I had said as opposed how she characterized it multiple times by repeating what she claimed I had meant, the assistant principal had to be reminded by the judge that she had been asked to supply a specific alleged quote and had to answer accordingly. It was clear from her response that she had totally mischaracterized my objection, as she could not recall the actual words, or anything close to what she claimed I was to have said, but had offered her interpretation of them and had presented it to the court as if it would just have to be accepted as stated.

Her misrepresentation was very clear.

On the first day n Court, the administration had presented the carefully edited and totally controlled videos of my classroom that had been shown to the School Board at my dismissal hearing. However, on the second day, not being restrained by the district’s policy as to what could be shown, my attorney played the complete videos including those parts that had been edited out by the administrator’s attorney. It was obvious that in order to have the Board vote for my dismissal it was important that they did not see those removed parts because in them students were working at the board, reading parts in plays, reciting poetry both individually and in chorus form, doing hands on activities, and answering some very difficult questions, often discussing each other’s answers.

The reinserted parts showed that I had made constant references to information the students should have already had, and upon discovering those things it turned out they didn’t remember, I had used books and many of the physical items I had in the room to clarify information, and, for the first time, presented the students translating Caesar and some paragraphs from a Latin version of Harry Potter using their knowledge of prefixes, root words, context clues, and Spanish.

In my opinion, one of the best segments on any of the videos was the assistant principal sitting next to a bulletin board upon which was hung a huge poster titled “What You Will Learn” that contained all the Pass Objectives for the year with the video clearly showing her looking at the poster even though in her assessment of that class she had made the charge that the Pass Objectives had not been posted anywhere in the room. That charge had been advanced at the dismissal hearing.

After the trial one of the administrators from the central office who was in charge of instruction and who had testified against me based on the edited videos, informed my attorneys how angry she was at having been misled in her assessment of my teaching by the highly edited versions of the videos after having been assured that it was the complete record.

Even after it was presented in court that the assistant principal had decided before she began evaluating me that she would make sure my evaluations would lead to my dismissal, the superintendent state, as he had at his deposition, that he hoped all evaluations were objective as subjective ones would put the district in a difficult situation.

The first day of the trial lasted seven hours.

 

 

 

(This weekend marks the 10th anniversary of a court case whose final effect would benefit GLBT students in Oklahoma City OK)

 

The usual and unchallenged result of a teacher rightfully or wrongfully dismissed from the Oklahoma City Public Schools district was that the teacher just went quietly away either due to the embarrassment or because they accepted the district’s offer that going quietly would result in anything negative in their file and any record of the dismissal hearing and vote would vanish and they could get a job elsewhere.

This made it obvious that some dismissals, at least, were contrived merely to have a teacher go away because they did not mesh with an administrator no matter how good of a teacher they were.

Sometimes, politics and opening a position for a friend, relative, or someone more malleable was the motivation.

With dismissals going unchallenged administrators were emboldened to remove teachers for very unsupportable reasons.

In my case, I could not become another Gay teacher, who was advocating for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender students, somehow being drummed out of the corps for trumped up reasons, and so I had taken the unique step of calling for a Trial de Novo to counter my dismissal.

Between what would be proven in court as my wrongful dismissal from the Oklahoma City Public Schools district and the District Court trial that would prove that, I spent the summer in town so that I would be available to answer my attorneys’ questions, find and deliver documents that might be needed,  and attend the various depositions. Since we entered summer with no definite date for the Trial de Novo we filed for, I was afraid to go anywhere for any length of time as I may have had to get back to town as soon as possible. This could be both inconvenient and expensive.

Unlike the Board hearing where district policy required I hand over all evidence in my favor to the administrators’ attorney so she could rule out anything that supported me and contradicted my accusers, a rather prejudiced procedure that guaranteed any teacher would be found deserving of dismissal without question, the district had no such control in court.

It seemed that each time my attorneys asked if I had a particular document I came across others neither they nor I remembered I had, but which turned out to be extremely helpful.

In their depositions each administrator laid responsibility for any mistakes on each other. Since they were deposed separately they had no idea of this among themselves.

The superintendent’s deposition was short, and because he went far beyond what was actually asked by my attorney, we got a glimpse into his thinking process and management style. He considered himself the “Lead Teacher”, and would prefer to be thought of in that light in spite of his deposition showing he seemed more attuned to whatever administrators told him than in giving his time to actually listening to teachers. Below him were his deputies, Area Directors, Principals, and then Assistant Principals, and they reported up the chain of command, and, based on the assumption that they were honest and had no ulterior motives, by the time anything got to him, he didn’t question anything he was told. He naively accepted whatever he was told by them as true.

He never spoke to the other side in any serious matter.

Asked if classroom observations were always objective, his response was that they had better be or the district could be in real trouble.

When my lawyer asked this he did so because the assistant principal, my evaluator, in her deposition a few days prior to his had admitted that my termination was a predetermined conclusion before any evaluation of my teaching as made and the questionable Plan of Improvement had been issued, and that she had decided she would gather any information that would support the need for my dismissal. This obviously meant that she had ignored anything supporting me as a good and effective teacher.

Her answers also exposed that the actions she had taken that led to the recommendation that I be dismissed were not actually her own, but those she was being directed to take by someone else. That person would turn out to be the administrators’ attorney, the person who had limited and prevented what evidence in my favor was allowed at my dismissal hearing before the school board the previous May.

As her deposition session was winding up and her guard was down, my attorney asked one last, seemingly throw away informal question.

Prostate Enlargement- Prostate Enlargement, a normal part of the growing child’s http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482311037_add_file_6.pdf viagra price exploration of his or her body. However, simply for fun, if you take best prices on sildenafil pill then you would surely be able to get strong state of male reproductive organ. Sip the drug wholly means as shop for viagra cheap it is. You may even find that your financial advisor or accountant may be of considerable help at this point as they are suggested as per their body type and how badly the http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482461379_add_file_1.pdf cialis prices problem has affected the person. Since at the end of the school year before the one that resulted in the recommendation for my dismissal my students’ test scores were above expectations, and during that year I had also been assigned a student teacher to mentor who was hired to teach at the school the following year, my attorney was curious how I could go from these two successes to being  such a bad teacher over the summer break who needed to be told how to approach my classes by a former Gym teacher and a former Typing teacher with no evidence their methods were better than my proven ones. So, as people were putting away legal pads and preparing to leave, he asked when it had been decided that steps would be taken to have me dismissed.

The vice-principal answered that that decision had been made before the school year had begun, and long before my first evaluation.

It was clear the dismissal had been orchestrated.

All the eyes around the conference table at which both sides were seated grew huge.

The superintendent was not interested in a teacher’s past performance which, in my case, could have been used to show that, if it could be believed, somehow in the summer break between June and August of 2008, suddenly and without warning I had somehow become the most incompetent teacher in the district based on the amount of time and money that would be spent to dismiss me after having had the successful year with  my students’ performance on the End of Instruction tests that spring.

A simple inspection of this sudden change would have shown clearly something was not reasonable here, but how a teacher was performing, or was said to be, in the present was all that counted to the superintendent, even though at the time of the assistant principal’s decision to have me dismissed prior to observing my teaching performance, it was also a “now”. How a teacher was doing now was, to his way of thinking, unquestionably and honestly reported by the chain of command. He assumed, because an administrator assured him that any Plan for Improvement was designed for the benefit of helping a slipping teacher, or one having a bad year, such plans were always reasonable and fair, and honestly arrived at.

These assumptions would evaporate during the trial as uncensored evidence, not allowed at the dismissal hearing, would be presented, evidence I had actually given to him when I realized what was happening, but which he chose to ignore.

The Regional Area Director‘s deposition was an attempt to make sure any blame for any erroneous act fell squarely on other people. She remembered very little of the events in which she played a part, and continually claimed to assume that anything that was done was done by others.

When the principal and the vice-principal, my evaluator, were questioned, it became apparent that my major”transgression”, besides advocating for GLBT students, was that I taught English so that the students did well on all state and government tests, but I didn’t use the methods my principal,  the former middle school gym teacher who had never taught English nor at a high school, thought would work. I, on the other hand, had had test scores at the top of the scale, and, so, I had stuck with what worked, rather than stop doing that in favor of what might work. The principal had read an educational  methodology book and wanted me to run my class according to that one book.

It was up to how this information and the complete evidence would be presented at trial now.

The time between the depositions and the trial was a busy and trying time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/EDGERINE-PROJECT-GETTING-OKLAHOMA-STUDENTS-ebook/dp/B00U36BDZM/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=joe+quigley&qid=1566322205&s=digital-text&sr=1-4

Wayne Allyn Root, a Newsmax TV host, declared Trump is the greatest president for Jews and Israel in the history of the world, Trump tweeted,

“Thank you to Wayne Allyn Root for the very nice words. ‘President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world, not just America, he is the best President for Israel in the history of the world…and the Jewish people in Israel love him….’”

Roots full tweet had been,

“This is the greatest president for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world. Not just in America, Trump is the best president for Israel in the history of the world. And the Jewish people love him like he is the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God.”

Trump had referred to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu as “your prime minister” when talking at a conference of Jewish Americans, and called Israel “your country” at a White House Hanukkah celebration.

Those of us of a certain age remember that when John F. Kennedy ran for the presidency there was a stated fear that his loyalty would be to the Vatican and as president he would be more loyal to it than to the United States.

Many evangelicals claim that Trump is an instrument of God’s will who is going to bring about the Second Coming.

79% of Jewish voters went for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, support for Democrats having fluctuated from 87% in 2006 to 66% in 2014 and 71% against Trump in the 2016.

So it is no wonder that Trump would have said in the Oval Office,

“Any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

This was obviously an anti-semitic disloyalty trope expressed by the president.
However, if the problem is persistent it is important to get the treatment. viagra online in canada These courses aren’t designed to provide prescription for ordering viagra a bare-minimum understanding of how it occurs. As well as playing Ed, Mignogna has performed in a host of major anime series, from Broly in the Dragon levitra order prescription Ball Z films to Ikkaku Madarame in Bleach Costumes and Tamaki in Ouran High School Host Club. levitra generic canada Minimum risk of side effects is one of the main advantages of online classes is that students can take up for intense practicing of driving.
On Wednesday on the White House lawn, Trump explained that he was not talking about Jews, but anyone who votes Democrat saying,

“If you vote Democrat you are disloyal to Israel and the Jewish people.”

But this is the United States and whoever we vote for should not be seen as disloyalty to any foreign country.

Then on the White House lawn on Wednesday, when asked about his ongoing trade war with China, Trump answered

“somebody had to do it.”

He then looked heavenward and announced,

“I am the chosen one.”

King of the Jews.

The Chosen One.

The second coming of God.

Move aside,  Jesus.