User Profile: LonestarFree

LonestarFree

Member Since: September 02, 2010

Comments

123
  • [3] February 19, 2015 at 12:10pm

    For all those who think anyone should be forced to provide a service against their will. Based on religious convictions should doctors with the necessary skills be forced to perform abortions? Isn’t it discrimination against women if a doctor won’t perform abortions? If I provide a service to the public that involves my personal skill, or artistic abilities, these things belong to me individually, and although used in business I retain my rights to them as a sovereign individual person. Government through legislation, or regulation, encroaching on my liberty, forcing me to provide my unique skills or artistic abilities under any circumstance by threat of fine or incarceration is a violation of my human rights, and the very liberty our constitution sought to insure was protected for every citizen.

    Responses (1) +
  • February 3, 2015 at 11:08am

    I added to my original post which was identical to yours with these questions it answers some of them.

  • [19] February 3, 2015 at 10:49am

    This was taken from the original story and it sounds like they didn’t want to take his money because he had made it inconvenient for them, and were asking him to leave with his money, taxes unpaid, I think. The real kicker is the police officer AND the tax assessor assaulted him when he pulled away from being handcuffed for breaking some imaginary made up stuff that was apparently an arrest worthy crime.
    According to the affidavit:
    The deputy was at the Annex, 600 Scott Street, just after 2 p.m. when Wichita County Tax Assessor Collector Tommy Smyth asked Timothy Andrew Norris, 27, to leave the tax office. Smyth accused Norris of disrupting the operation and efficiency of the tax office by attempting to pay $600-worth of property taxes with $1 bills. The bills were said to be folded so tightly it “required tax office personnel approximately six minutes to unfold each bill.”

    When Norris refused, he was arrested and charged with criminal trespass. As the deputy grabbed Norris’ arm to place him in handcuffs, Norris pulled away. He pulled away again when the deputy went to grab his arm a second time, causing the deputy and Smyth to wrestle Norris to the ground to detain him — bringing an additional charge of resisting arrest.
    Norris’ bail totaled $500 for both charges. He was not in the Wichita County Jail Monday.

    Responses (1) +
  • [52] February 3, 2015 at 10:32am

    He was accused of trying to disrupt the tax offices functioning, and he was charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.
    Anytime the government doesn’t like something you have done, or are doing, they arrest you and make up a reason for your arrest. I want to know how you can criminal trespass in a public (owned by the tax payers) government building, during business hours, when that building is open to the public in this case for the business of collecting taxes, and you are there paying your taxes. I would like to see the law or ordinance that defines his actions as criminal trespass. I would like more detail on why he wouldn’t leave did they give him a receipt for his $600? There are usually cameras everywhere I would be very interested in seeing what they defined as resisting arrest, and shouldn’t it be appropriate to resist arrest if they don’t have a legal basis for your detention. (I’m not saying they did or didn’t) We have the story, but we only seem to have one side of it. We have no relevant detail to form an opinion of law enforcement or the citizen being justified in their actions. Rules of journalism: Who, what, when, where, why, and how. This story is very light on the why.

    Responses (4) +
  • [9] January 29, 2015 at 11:10am

    The 2A is about a God given right to self defense of lives and property against anyone who would be a threat to to them. A right is God given the constitution acknowledges this right and by the wisdom of the founders seeks to protect it. The States ratified the constitution including the first 10 amendments and now seek to imply they should have authority to violate a right of the people and disarm them at their discretion. I personally am “licensed” to conceal carry because I obey the law as it exist, but my interpretation of the constitution is that I do not need a license to carry a gun concealed or otherwise and no distinction should be made between a rifle and a handgun.

  • [9] January 19, 2015 at 8:29am

    I’m still convinced the game between Dallas and Green Bay was fixed who does the NFL punish for that?

  • [19] December 12, 2014 at 10:45am

    I don’t know about California, but in Texas it is a crime trying to stop or erase someones personal video. It is considered evidence tampering and is a very serious (felony) crime.

  • [1] December 8, 2014 at 11:42am

    I saw all the commercials, but I didn’t tune in to watch. I told my wife at the time that I didn’t think it was possible because an anaconda would crush and break many if not all the bones before eating a person.

  • [16] December 4, 2014 at 5:06pm

    Give “us” a break, who is “us”? The “majority here lose credibility” is certainly a broad statement and based on the assumption that the majority is simply against anything the president does. I think the majority here are people who care about the United States, and want to see common sense used even when handing out political favors, surely the president knows someone that donated big to his campaign that speaks Spanish. You imply that this sort of thing goes back to George Washington which can be a debate for another time, what I want to know is why you, or anyone, is so willing to accept that this is just how things are, and because others have done it, that makes it OK. I think the majority of the people here are fed up with the lies, corruption, political games, and misuse of funds in the public treasury. The hardest thing for you to believe will probably be that “the majority” of us don’t care if the person is a republican or democrat, male or female, or what race they are. I think the majority her would agree we want someone honest, someone who understands and reveres the constitution, someone who knows Washington has grown to large, it’s become oppressive to the states and the people, someone willing to relinquish power and restore liberty back to the people. OK, I have to admit, it is unlikely you would ever find a Democrat that meets any of those requirements, and only a handful of Republicans. We need the hearts and minds of those who long for liberty to serve.

  • [1] November 21, 2014 at 11:38am

    OK Vision Harry that was funny, thanks for the chuckle.

  • [9] November 14, 2014 at 2:35am

    More people watched the clip than CNN has viewers.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 13, 2014 at 11:08am

    After the police investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing, unless she has a good lawyer it will never see a court room where the officer faces jail time for felony assault. They file a civil case, she gets paid off, and the next citizen to be beaten pays the price.

  • [4] November 13, 2014 at 10:55am

    So what could she have done that justifies doing this to her in front of her child? Do you think this kid will ever trust the police after seeing what they did to to his mother for yelling at him. The police continue to sow the seeds and build distrust in the community, look at Detroit as example of citizens who don’t trust.

  • [3] November 13, 2014 at 10:45am

    I get your point and I have seen enough to know that there are two sides to every story, but the physical abuse delivered by police today for seemingly nothing is completely out of control in America and apparently Canada too. Officers are committing acts of violence on the public daily without any accountability which is a prescription for abuse of authority. I don’t care what this woman did she did not deserve the handcuffed beat down she got. The police are out of control and if you can’t acknowledge that I suspect you would be a good candidate to be one of them.

  • [2] November 10, 2014 at 4:55pm

    I don’t support her being fired or even disciplined. Freedom of speech means people will say things you don’t like. She is a nobody, but the mob is all ready to come after her. I’m a middle aged white man and I support her right to say and think whatever she wants. As to issues of her being a school teacher and saying such things If it isn’t said in her class what right do we have to police her actions unrelated to school activities? I’m sure the school has some guideline about conduct outside of school if this is a violation and an embarrassment in violation of her contract then the school has a job opening, but the mob does not get to decide.

    Responses (6) +
  • [58] November 5, 2014 at 11:00am

    I believe Sharyl Attkisson’s account of the cover up. CBS had hard evidence of the presidents’ claim being untrue then purposely, with meaningful intent, hid the truth from the public. CBS along with other news organizations have chosen sides, which means you only get the new they want you to have, presented in a way that is most favorable to their side, even when the news is devastating to their side. That is exactly what was done in this account from Sharyl Attkisson, the truth doesn’t live at CBS.

    Responses (8) +
  • [9] November 5, 2014 at 10:11am

    Nilsson – You are wrong and while we could argue it out in this forum I agree that we should revisit this post in 2 years and let her record stand for itself. I believe her to be a true conservative, and she has spoken at Tea Party events by invitation I think that qualifies her as having the Tea Party backing. Let her actions reveal the content of her character.

  • [1] November 4, 2014 at 11:40am

    The only outrage here is that there are people outraged over this. This is a matter of choice it could be viewed as good press, or as it is being treated like there is something salacious about it. I can go to any beach and see this level of exposure, however with some of them you might wish you had seen a little less. If they had appeared at a USO show the only mention would have been in Stars and Stripes. Frankly I’m pissed off that someone was stripped of command for this and that any soldier would be disciplined for their participation in any aspect of the photo shoot. If they can fight and die for freedom then they should be afforded a little liberty of their own.

  • October 16, 2014 at 4:37pm

    Before I say anything further I have a driver license and I am polite and compliant to law enforcement. Who told you driving was a privilege? It was the first thing I learned in a drivers education class, that’s what the State says. The horse and buggy defense is entirely relevant. The weapons citizens can posses under the second amendment is based on what is usual and customary for the times, or we would all still be firing black powder single shots. So to this end it is relevant what the customary form of transportation is. I am free, therefore I am free to drive a vehicle anywhere I please without the consent of the State or Federal government. States have an obligation to protect the citizens and with that obligation the right to test a driver. Forcing you to produce a license for something you don’t need their permission to do is overstepping the authority they have. A one time permit is all you should have to do. It took me some time to accept this, we have been slaves for so long its difficult to conceive of true freedom and we won’t get our freedom back till we make the courts acknowledge it.

  • [4] October 16, 2014 at 12:20pm

    I got this from the U.S. News & World Report / Education
    “The university is recognized for fostering intellectual creativity. At SOU, we don’t simply encourage students to be creative. We surround students with a culture based on creative expression and critical thinking. We expose them to different points of view. We challenge conventional thinking. And we provide an open, inclusive environment where students are free to speak their minds.”
    I may be wrong, but that statement isn’t exactly true if the campus has an area designated as a “Free Speech Zone”. It might be a good idea for the administration to review what exactly a public university is, and then read the constitution paying special attention to the “Bill of Rights”. I don’t mind these young impressionable kids being indoctrinated, as long as it is in the the concepts of inalienable rights, freedom, and the individual liberty enshrined in, and protected by, the United States Constitution. Everywhere is a “Free Speech Zone” in the United States of America, at least for now.

123
Restoring Love