Category Archives: Texas

Terry Holcomb Sr. Goes to Jail for Defending Liberty For YOU!

Terry Holcomb Sr. Stands Up for Himself  (and other Constitutional Commentary)

Take a good listen to the details of this event. The actions of this judge are despicable. Here is KrisAnne Hall’s plea for you to listen to this broadcast and take action:

“What is Liberty worth to you? To Terry Holcomb, Sr. it is worth going to jail. Mr. Holcomb refused to allow his voice to be silenced by tyrannical government and that tyrannical government put him in jail. He stood his ground peacefully, while others watched on in submission to tyranny. Mr. Holcomb defended Liberty for YOU and YOUR CHILDREN. Will YOU stand with him NOW?”

Just three days ago, a judge in a Texas county decided to adjourn a meeting which was held for the purpose of hearing public redress of an issue to which there was public opposition.

The County didn’t want to hear any opposition. So what did the judge do? He adjourned the meeting before anyone had a chance to speak contrary to the intentions of the County……. and of course that was the designated reason for the meeting in the first place.

One man, Terry Honcomb, Sr.,  protested and demanded that he be allowed to speak. . Inspite of the fact that the meeting was already formally adjourned when Mr. Holcomb spoke up, he was arrested and jailed on a bogus charge because he had refused to be denied the opportunity to be heard.  Mr. Holcomb broke no law, and only stood up for his right to be hear and not to be run over by a judge’s abuse of authority.

 

—>  Listen to the audio commentary by KrisAnne Hall  here

 

Why there even is a Bill of Rights

Why would I take the position that the Constitution was written to protect the people against the unjust actions of a tyrannical government? Maybe it’s because the history of the activities of the Continental Congress in 1789 verifies that position. The Federalists actually argued against the creation of the Bill of Rights, but not because they disagreed with its proposed contents.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the Federalist point of view, argued against the creation of a Bill of Rights, and it was a hotly contested issue in the Constitutional debates.  His motivations for taking that position were also quite reasonable. Hamilton contended that as soon as you spell out a defined set of individual rights, those specific words would be used to rule in favor of the allowance or prohibition of anything that was not specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights  as prohibited or allowed.  Hamilton was quite perceptive.

The Bill of Rights WAS created, and now we can see exactly that happening today. Liberals.  in their interpretation of the Bill of Rights, take exactly the same position that Hamilton feared would be taken.

For instance, in the modern  liberal view, you can outlaw certain kinds of weapons, because their allowance was not specifically spelled out when the Constitution was penned in 1789. After all, automatic rifles did not exist back then. Therefore, by their argument, we can outlaw them without ever infringing on the rights that existed in 1789.

Likewise, in the liberal view, we can define what comprises “the press” to exclude bloggers and Facebook particpants because the press was nothing more than newspapers back in 1789. The internet did not exist yet. Therefore, by their argument, bloggers and people who do not fit a government definition of “press” can be excluded from the freedom of press rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Those are only two examples and both pf them typify exactly the kind of Constitutional abuse that Hamilton warned against. On the other hand, although that’s why Hamilton didn’t favor adopting a Bill of Rights, where would we be without it to lean on today? Hamilton lost that argument, and the Bill of Rights DOES exist. So now, we have this resulting interpretation debate to deal with, just as Hamilton predicted would happen.

What is the only logical answer to this Constitutional interpretation debate?

In my mind, original intent is the only argument behind which anyone can stand with any sort of logical validity. Original intent is easy enough to understand on the basis of the history that transpired in the debates of the Continental Congress, resulting in the penning of the final documents. If we can establish what the Framers intended, that is, what the absolute meaning behind their words was, that must certainly take precedence over any sort of opinion about it. Rulings about whatever the Constitution DIDN’T ever say, can logically be nothing but baseless and personally biased opinions. Such opinions are easy to spot, because they without exception walk on someone’s inalienable rights.


The narrator, KrisAnne Hall, in the piece linked above well explains the debate in 1789 over whether or not there even should have been a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. If you really read and dig into history, you will learn that the party which believed that the purpose of the Constitution was to give the people power over potential tyrannical government, was the same party that WON the debate over the issue of whether or not there should even BE be an enumerated Bill of Rights. Because they won that argument, the Bill of Rights was created and ratified.

I have been told by liberal minded friends that I need to read the Constitution because I am supposedly misinterpreting it.

Well, I did. I carry a copy in my briefcase. I also read history, and I also considered the tyrannical actions of King George, who inspired the Colonists to revolt and to declare independence from his tyrannical government.

What I have not done, and which makes me incapable of Constitutional interpretation, according to one of my esteemed well meaning liberal friends, is to take a course from a liberal arts college law department which teaches students to interpret the Constitution in exactly the manner against which Alexander Hamilton warned it is not to be interpreted.

Be sure to listen to the audio and take action.

Facebooktwitterrss

Women Sue Over Public Body Cavity Searches | They Don’t Need a Reason to Molest You In Public

women sue over body cavity searches

Texas Department of “Justice” officers apparently don’t need a compelling reason to stick their hands down your pants or fingers in your private parts In full view of traffic beside the highway in broad daylight with cars full of random strangers zooming by.

If this sounds like possibly one of those urban legends that couldn’t have happened because it’s just too bizarre, ridiculous and over-the-top to have happened, then think again. It was all caught on the troopers dash-cam. And, actually, this wasn’t the first time that a body cavity search was done on two women with the same glove in Texas beside a busy highway. In that case it was due to suspicion of marijuana and none was found. This is obviously a flagrant disregard for constitutional rights, but it’s also bad policy that is going to cost taxpayers a bundle. It’s even more unnerving than forcing women to shake their bra out while lifting their shirt as reported recently.

So let’s get this straight… In the “land of the free”, if “they” say they found a small amount of marijuana (possibly dropped by your slacker brother or some acquaintance you gave a ride to the store or something), it’s a perfectly legitimate reason for someone with little to no medical training to use the same rubber glove to go in any and all orifices of your body at their discretion with no oversight from a superior or protocol (or sanitation)?

Uh… Sounds reasonable…

 

Women Sue Over Public Body Cavity Searches.

…And remember… “they hate us for our Freedom”…

BRAZORIA COUNTY, TX — Two women had the inside of their crotches (orifices)  searched on the side of the highway, thanks to the dutiful enforcement of tyrannical drug prohibition laws.

Officers pulled the women over for speeding on their way home from the beach. Of course, traffic stops are just the excuse a good enforcer needs to begin fishing for reasons to throw people in cages.

After finding a small amount of forbidden plants in the vehicle, officer Nathaniel Turner, wasn’t satisfied. He wanted more. The two women, dressed only in bikinis, were told they were going to get an internal body cavity search. He called a female trooper to search their genitalia for drugs on the side of Highway 288 in Brazoria County

“Are you serious,” Brandy Hamilton asked the trooper.

“If you hid something in there, we’re going to find it,” said the trooper.

“You’re going to go up my private parts?!” Hamilton said.

“Yes ma’am.”

The women say that the same glove was used to violate all of their orifices.

women sue over body cavity searches

Women Sue Over Body Cavity Searches Beside Highway In Daylight

There are truly no limits to the amount of terror and tyranny that are created by the fascist Drug War that plagues the country.

“These police officers are here to protect and serve,” said Hamilton. “They did not protect me at all. Not one of them, and it was three officers out there.”

Brandy Hamilton and Alexandria Randle are suing the officers involved.

SHARE THIS!!!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6VHn5_7os

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/texas-women-sue-humiliating-body-cavity-searches-roadside-article-1.1390230#ixzz2Y6wIDJOF

If you enjoy knowing what’s going on in the world, please defend the First Amendment that 41 Democrats and 1 Socialist in the senate have voted to repeal. 

Facebooktwitterrss

Texas Passes A Bill To Train Teachers As Armed Marshals

texas teachers marshals
Texas legislators have sent a bill to Governor Rick Perry that allows schools to train and maintain teachers as “armed marshals” on campuses.
The bill, which had already passed the Texas house, enjoyed a bipartisan passage of 28-3 in the Texas senate.

According to the Associated Press, the bill enjoyed the strong support of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who “pushed lawmakers to help school districts provide teachers or other employees with special weapons and tactical response training.” Dewhurst’s pleas were echoed by smaller school districts that could not afford to hire police and other security forces for their schools.

Under the bill, trained teachers would keep a firearm in a lockbox “within immediate reach.” It allows one armed marshal per 400 students and contains provisions to hide the name of that marshal from public record, to keep him or her from being purposefully targeted in an attack.

Teachers’ groups opposed the bill, arguing that protection ought to be left to security professionals. Yet because Texas already allows teachers to carry guns where school boards approve, the arguments against the bill did not prevail.

Senator Brian Birdwell (R) said the concern over law-abiding citizens possessing guns on campus is misdirected: “The Second Amendment is not about the gun, it’s about the right to self-preservation.”

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!