Connect with us


Should you lose your job for giving Trump the bird?



Last month, a random bicyclist hoisted the bird to President Trump’s motorcade as it passed on a northern Virginia roadway. Okay, people have First Amendment rights. No problem. The photo of this event “went viral” (which is funny because I never saw it until the Washington Post published it along with a sanctimonious piece lauding the cyclist’s victimhood). Then the woman’s employer found out about it when she told them it was her in the photo.

They fired her.


Now this woman wasn’t a food server at a cafeteria. She was a marketing executive at a government contracting company. That company depends on the government for its livelihood, and therefore bad publicity within the government is deleterious to their mission. The woman, Juli Briskman, is a marketing executive. It’s her job to meet with and persuade those same government people who now know she flipped off the president, representing her company to them.

Suddenly, Briskman became a liability. You bet she should be fired. She wasn’t fired for flipping the bird. She was fired for becoming a liability to her employer.

Now, the second question. Is the company violating her First Amendment rights? No. Those apply to the government, for whom she doesn’t work. The next question. Does it matter that Briskman didn’t intend to make a public, widely-distributed, attributed, personal attack on the president? That’s a fair question.

It might matter. But we have no right to privacy outside riding our bikes in public. But do we have a right to anonymity? Not really. If we’re in public and people recognize us, that’s one of the risks of doing things in public. Do we have a right to not be photographed? Same answer. Do we have a right to keep our likeness out of viral social media photos? It depends, but generally, no, not when we’re doing random things in public, especially in the context of a newsworthy event. So if you’re picking your nose in front of a building fire, and the newspaper catches your grossness and tweets the photo in the background of the fire, you lose. You could try to sue, but you’d likely lose.

The Washington Post is trying to make this issue into Trump-supporting boss against victim employee. None of that is relevant unless they can prove the company was just itching for a reason to fire Briskman and somehow, they knew the motorcade would roll down the road she cycles on. Maybe a well-placed call to the Secret Service engineered the whole event. Maybe the Russians influenced it.

Or maybe Juli Briskman learned a hard lesson about doing things in public in front of the presidential motorcade. You never know who’s filming. And another lesson about telling your employer you just did something that will make you a liability: find another job before you do.

The biker who flipped off President Trump is now out of a job – The Washington Post out it has now cost the 50-year-old marketing executive her job. On Halloween, after Briskman gave her bosses at Akima, a government contracting firm, a heads-up that she was the unidentified cyclist in the photo, they took her into a room and fired her, she said, escorting her out of the building with a box of her things. “I wasn’t even at work when I did that,” Briskman said.

Scarlett is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. She writes mostly about politics, but occasionally delves into book and movie reviews.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Deserttrek

    November 7, 2017 at 7:57 am

    over reaction and total 100% bs
    ANY and ALL citizens have the right to free expression
    this was not at work

    the employer is wrong and I hope she sues and wins


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Money Pit: California’s not-so-high-speed rail



Have you heard this story, a couple finds a million dollar distress sale mansion on the market for a mere $200,000? Some upgrades are needed, but overall it’s a bargain. What ensues is comedic brilliance as the owners find out the house is barely standing. They pour more and more money into the house in the classic Tom Hank’s comedy “The Money Pit.”

Just like this movie, the California High-Speed Rail has become our Money Pit, but unlike the movie, this is no laughing matter.

In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond to partially fund an 800-mile high-speed electric train traveling up to 220 mph. The goal would be that the state would fund a third, one-third by the federal government, and the last third via private investment. Total cost was estimated at $35 billion.

What has transpired since 2008? No more federal funding and no private funding. From 800-miles we went to 520 miles, as a cost savings measure. From 220 mph we are at 110 mph in large sections of the rail, to save money of course, and a possible completion date of 2020, is now estimated to be completed by 2033.

With all these cost-saving measures you would assume the cost would come down. Unfortunately, for California taxpayers, this money pit keeps getting worse.

The price tag for all these cost-saving measures brought to you by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the California Legislature is currently estimated at $77.3 billion. But wait you want more savings and fiscal responsibility, too bad, because this $77.3 billion estimate may ultimately cost California taxpayers $98.1 billion. My prediction is it will be even higher.

At this point, it might be cheaper and faster to build a Death Star instead. Not to mention more useful.

This is not what the voters were promised. We did not approve a not-so-high-speed train with a price tag most likely ten times the initial projected cost to California taxpayers.

This boondoggle of a money pit must be stopped. Those billions can be used to help repair our roads, highways, bridges, dams, water reservoirs, and critical infrastructure.

If elected to be California’s next State Controller and Chief Financial Officer, I will look at all legal means to cut funding to this project. In my opinion, if we bought one thing and are getting something else, then the authorization to fund this project has not been authorized by the people, and thus the Controller may have the legal authority to stop payment until the project complies with Proposition 1A.

I hope, I won’t have to do this, and the Legislature does its job and kills this project. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. We made a promise to taxpayers to be good stewards of their trust and money. Let’s restore that trust and do the right thing, and let’s put an end to this money pit.

Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

When gun control failed, SRO saves Maryland school



2 students and a suspect were injured in a shooting that took place in southern Maryland. The shooter has since been announced dead. He used a handgun which are highly regulated due to Maryland’s strict gun control. Following the Parkland shooting, Governor Hogan proposed putting a lockbox on casino revenues to be used to fund security in school. This would be the first serious attempt to use the casino money, which was supposed to be for schools, for their intended purpose. In response to today’s incident, other counties, such as Carroll County, are placing deputies in schools as a direct response to the shooting in St. Mary’s County.

The Story

ABC: Student suspect dead, girl critical, boy stable after shooting at Great Mills HS in Md.

The suspect, a student, is dead after a shooting Tuesday morning at a high school in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, that has left a girl in critical condition and a boy in stable condition, according to authorities.

The St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office says it happened at Great Mills High School and that police are on the scene. ABC7’s Brad Bell said sources first told him that the shooter was a student, as were the two victims. Police later confirmed that the shooter was a student. Police also confirmed that a school resource officer took action to end the threat and authorities confirmed the incident has been contained.

MedStar St. Mary’s Hospital identified the victims as a 16-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy. They say the two were taken to them at around 8:15 a.m. and that the girl was later taken to the University of Maryland Prince George’s Hospital Center.

The Takeaway

Being uninformed, deliberately or ignorantly, many on the left will use this as a rallying point for gun control. But as a Marylander, I can attest to Maryland having some of the strictest laws in the country. These laws failed to prevent this incident, as they have failed to curb Baltimore’s crime. Too many on the right, as well are just as uninformed about current laws. We can’t begin to talk about gun control when the population is so desperately malnourished of facts. We can, however, contemplate the issuance of SROs in schools or other means of security such as allowing teachers to voluntarily undergo concealed carry training.

Alas, leftists are saying the SRO went in knowing that an AR-15 wasn’t being used. No, the SRO did his job unlike those cowards in the corrupt Broward Sheriff’s Office. They are trained to engage whatever the gun, because confrontation saves lives. This SRO is a hero. I look forward to knowing his name. Thankfully, only the perpetrator is dead, and together let us pray that the two students recover.


Continue Reading


Hypocrisy? Abortionist acknowledges an unborn as a moral person



One of the beauties about twitter is that when an abortionist as proud as Leah Torres, they are subject to a ongoing ratio-ing. It’s rare for the pro-abortion side to presents such an evil or semi-honest advocate. You may have already seen a number of vile tweets in which this serial killer (3 or more premeditated murders with resting period in-between) proudly acknowledges her work. This is a person who kills babies out of intrinsic motivation, which is perhaps worse than financial.

Okay, that’s enough. Now, I wanted to point out this tweet where she shows a very different attitude towards the unborn.

It’s sad that people would allow a baby killer to deliver a fetus into the world. It’s also sad and ironic that she ascribes moral worth to a baby about to be born that isn’t undergoing an abortion.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.