Writer's Email: wesawthat@gmail.com
Fone WST... +1318.717.9017 Twitter:@wesawthat “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” ~ Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
Female Flyer Probed For Mile-High Rub
-
Pantless passenger, 46, allegedly pleasured self en route to Miami
Katy Inzer, a Maryland bartender, told cops that she had consumed several
drinks befor...
Fluoridation Fails the US
-
US parents report that about 30% of children - approximately 8.6 million
children ages 6 to 12 - have missed school due to an oral health problem,
not ju...
Speed Cameras Painted, Burned in France, Italy, UK
-
[image: Colorful French speed camera]By Richard Diamond/Staff Reports
Vigilantes in Swansea, Wales, blinded the newly replaced speed camera on
Llangyfelach...
Abdur Biswas (Sep 1, 1926 - Nov 3, 2017)
-
Bangladeshi Statesman. He served as the 11th President of Bangladesh from
October 10, 1991 to October 9, 1996. He was educated at Dhaka University
where he...
Thank You.
-
I've never been much of a writer (let alone one of my father's caliber),
but I know that I must express my thanks to you all somehow.
The support that we h...
failing to address how the ordinances in question are constitutional, the city of alexandria, la., in its answer pleads in part, that:
"the purposes of the ordinances also include the protection of young adults from their own vulnerabilities, protection of the public health and general welfare and the protection of young adults from the corrupting influences of older patrons drinking alcoholic beverages."
according to the petition, La. R.S. 26:286 allows those citizens aged 18 - 20 to enter into a bar -- but they can't purchase or consume alcohol.
so, not to be outdone by legislation passed by that collection of freaks, perverts, criminals and lunatics who comprise the organized crime gang which calls itself the loony looziana legislature, in 2008 the (to be kind) nanny-staters and rinos (well one rino) on the alexandria, la., city counsel passed an ordinance, which, unsurprisingly, the mayor, who in this case we will refer to again as "baggy pants roy," promptly signed into law which seems to conflict with state law.
the ordinance cited as being "codified in the alexandria, louisiana code of ordinances, part ii, section 4-25(3)," goes a step further than state law and prohibits bar owners from selling alcoholic beverages to or allowing 18 - 20 year old citizens from even entering a bar -- "unless said person is accompanied by such person's parent or legal guardian who is over the age of twenty-one."
although the petition doesnt state when it was passed (the online ordinance book seems to indicate 09 february 1999), it also cites alexandria, la., ordinance, section 15-81.2, which "prohibits any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years from going into or upon or remaining in or upon or attempting to go into or upon or remain in or upon any business, which belongs to another, where alcoholic beverages are the principal commodity sold, handled or given away, unless such person is accompanied by his or her legal guardian."
the petition avers that these two city of alexandria ordinances violate sections 3 and 9 of the louisiana constitution of 1974 and they want the ordinances struck down
since we're always for rescinding, nullifying or striking down all freedom killing laws, rules, regulations, ordinances and so forth, we have to side with the unique plaintiffs.
the petitioners also attempted to make the rapides parish police jury defendants due to a similar parish wide ordinance. however, the judge requested that the police jury not be served.
also the judge while denying the temporary restraining order to enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinances in question, ordered the petitioners to submit their brief by 20 may 2012 and the city to submit theirs by 25 may and fixed a hearing for 9:30 am on 19 june 2012.
the petition is filed by marksville, louisiana attorney douglas l. bryan of the bryan law firm, llc (who might want to consider hiring a better proofreader) and is allotted to ninth judicial district court judge john c. davidson.
====
click here to download ten page .pdf [439 kb] ====
on the second day of spring 2012 a perfumed prince is out harassing the commoners.
perhaps we would have some respect for the police if they were out investigating and arresting crooked politicians, elected and governmental officials, white collar criminals and other treasonous, traitorous rats who are destroying this country -- rather than spending all their time out writing "speeding tickets" to citizens who are merely attempting to get from point a to point b on roads that their tax dollars already paid for and upon which they have a right to travel.
by now everyone who follows local politics knows about alexandria, la., city councilman jonathan goins' sudden and unexpected resignation from the council.
it's too bad that mr. goins resigned his position especially in light of his hard fought court win against the lame attempt by the then district three incumbent charles fredrick "droopy draws" smith to have him disqualified.
"droopy draws" smith lost his "petition to disqualify candidate" at both the trial court and third circuit appeal court levels and mr. goins went on to defeat him (as well as the roy machine) at the ballot box by a 2 -1 margin.
as is often the case when a controversy involves a louisiana career tax feeder, mayor roy reincarnated "droopy draws" to head his safealex secret police stasi snitch program -- who knows it might have been some information gleaned on mr. goins through that which led to his resignation.
charles frederick smith was represented by roy sock puppet, george gaiennie, iii and mr. goins by controversial alexandria attorney, thomas d. davenport, jr.
the trial court judge was now retired ninth judicial district court judge, florence ray swent.
I received word earlier today that the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to hear Charles F. Smith’s case arguing that Jonathan Goins doesn’t live in Alexandria Council District 3 and should be disqualified from running in the Oct. 4 election. ~ read more
====
UPDATE 04 august 2008: WRIT APPLICATIONS DENIED: 2008-C -1756 CHARLES F. SMITH, JR. v. JONATHAN D. GOINS, ET AL. (Parish of Rapides) ~ link
the dead pelican links to a times picayune story in which we learn "A federal grand jury is expected to indict State Sen. Derrick Shepherd this morning after months investigating allegations that the Marrero Democrat laundered $141,000 for an unlicensed bond broker."
senator shepherd is the same nut, who as a state representative, stood on the house floor in 2004 and actually said that if his then bill banning baggy pants wasnt passed, it would mean that the house pages would be coming to work with their asses hanging out. now you know, that should have been the tip-off to everyone, that this guy doesnt possess the proper brain power required to be successful in organized crime.
====
not to be out done, now senator shepherd, this year introduced his senate bill 223 which "creates the crime of unlawfully wearing clothing which exposes undergarments or body parts." this bill hasnt been discussed yet but if you watch the above video from 2004 you cant help but notice how then representative shepherd invokes the name of the lord in trying to unsuccessfully convince his fellow representatives to pass his legislation. this is interesting and telling as representative shepherd must have missed the part where the lord god wrote with his finger about not stealing.
according to this graphic put out today by gannett/the town talk, alexandria city councilman charles frederick 'droopy draws' smith receives a fantabulous annual salary of $56,232 working in the corrections division of the rapides parish sheriff's office.
more evidence that louisiana has the lousiest politicians in the land.
morning advocate excerpt:
By ROY PITCHFORD Advocate Westside bureau Published: Oct 23, 2007 - Page: 4B
PORT ALLEN — The City Council joined the growing list of governmental bodies adopting laws to control saggy trousers.
The council unanimously adopted an ordinance Monday that requires pants to be secured at the waist so they do not fall below the hips, expose underwear or create indecent exposure.
Council member Ray Helen Lawrence said she was voting for the motion “only because of the calls I have received,” and because many of her constituents said they associate the wearing of sagging trousers with crime.
The new law does not criminalize the wearing of such attire.
Rather it provides civil penalties for violators — a fine of $25 to $250 for a first offense, and $250 to $500 for repeat offenses. During the public hearing that preceded the vote, two women spoke against adopting the new law.
“I can’t believe you’re trying to restrict a particular type of clothing,” said Donnie Owens, who added that she believes the law would improperly violate freedom of expression.
Stephanie DeLaney said light-heartedly that she feared she might violate the law because she sometimes wears baggy pants and has lost weight.
“I’d hate for someone to call the cops on me for that,” she observed.
Council member High Riviere said that underwear “is called underwear for a reason,” and said he didn’t want to view other people’s undergarments.
hizzoner in an extremely wordy bunch of nonsense styled as a press release (see link) attempts to explain away his boneheaded decision to allow the 'baggy pants' ordinance to become law.
the thing is though is that da mayor only succeeds in making himself look like an even bigger ass.
[G]iven the desires of the City Council, and including the unanimity by which this Ordinance was passed, the Administration has decided not to exercise the right of veto. A veto would be meaningless since the Council has voiced its unanimous decision to move forward on this matter after being reminded of the issues surrounding the law’s application. On the other hand, the matter deserves a special message from the Administration because there are concerns about the over breadth and vagueness of this Ordinance and perhaps its execution without Court sanction to avoid legal challenges which might result in liability to the City.
in other words the mayor is saying that even though he believes this ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable but since the city council unanimously passed this ordinance to veto it would be pointless.
above that the mayor wrote:
Because the council’s decision was unanimous and because this ordinance does not involve construing the Alexandria Home Rule Charter, as to organization or structure, in a manner inconsistent with the Charter, I will not veto the ordinance but also will not execute it, allowing it to become law by default...
this isnt an accurate statement either because sec 1-04 of the alexandria city charter states that:
[T]he city shall have and is hereby granted the right and authority to exercise any power and perform any function necessary, requisite or proper for the management of its affairs, not denied by this charter, or by general law, or inconsistent with the constitution. emphasis ours.
on 04 december 2006 jacques roy took an oath of office [video] in which he solemnly swore to support the constitution and laws of the united states...however the mayor is not honoring his oath. anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that the legal thing for the mayor to have done would have been to veto the ordinance and if the city council overrode his veto, so what? then the blame would be solely on their heads. now the mayor is culpable and whats worse mayor roy is willing to play silly word games and politics with our civil liberties and freedoms.
some people think mayor roy made a bone-headed move in not vetoing charles frederick smith's 'baggy pants' ordinance. while 'boneheaded' is certainly one word that comes to mind -- the other word that comes to mind based on mayor roy's own comments is criminal.
on 04 december 2006 jacques m. roy, duly elected but before he could ever become mayor, was first required to stand before the public and promise god that "i solemnly swear that i will support the constitution and laws of the united states, that i will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as mayor for the city of alexandria according to the best of my ability and understanding so help me god"...heres the video
ever since this 'baggy pants' foolishness instigated by the self hating negro charles frederick smith was sprung on the people -- people who have bothered to check into the legality and constitutionality of such, have all said that its unconstitutional, wont survive a court challenge and being a new law was ripe for a court challenge and that this ordinance only serves to make alexandrians look stupid. talking about looking stupid globally -- we've had 'baggy pants' googlers from the media like the british broadcasting corporation, nbc universal, turner/cnn, newspapers, lots n lots of law offices, bloggers and others from south america and canada, australia and new zealand, europe, asia and on and on...this shit is almost as popular as richard lee mcnair. so to the mayor and the city council we say - Mission Accomplished! assholes.
going back to the oath the mayor and each city councilmen took -- making someone stick up their right hand and swear an oath is the only thing the human race has come up with to be able to hold someone 100% accountable and responsible to do what they say they are going to do.
this is why its so important to hold politicians faithful to their oath. the oath they swear is what is supposed to be their guiding principal. it sets the tone of everything they do. politicians are supposed to work within the constitution and they swear to not weaken it or tear it down. they are not meant to use their offices to get back at people by supporting or ordaining dubious, unconstitutional laws that use the power of the state to that end for them.
in this two minute video clip of 28 august 2007 alexandria city council meeting, mayor roy seemingly tells the city council about the 'baggy pants' ordinance being unconstitutional. however, even worse, if you listen closely at the beginning the mayor qualified himself by stating "before you move to "h" i just want to let the council know regarding number thirty-two and iam not saying that you would need to reconsideration, mister johnson [city attorney charles "chuck" johnson] has expressed some issues about constitutionality and those kinda things i just want to let the council know since he's not here..." the mayor to put it on the city attorney -- then in the end doesnt trust his own city attorney enough to follow his advice!
the alexandria mayor is an attorney at law too and has at least in one instance informed the city council that his being bound by the lawyer code of conduct would from time to time govern or guide some of his actions/decisions unlike a non-lawyer mayor. looks like this could mean that as an officer of the court the mayor by not vetoing this ordinance has violated the louisiana rules of professional conduct rule 3.1 because the rules of professional conduct say that the mayor "knows" or "reasonably should know" that upon the competent legal advice (of the city attorney) who the mayor said told him 'baggy pants' laws are unconstitutional and that:
"A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so in good faith, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."
because of this rule every time someone gets cited or hauled to court for 'baggy pants' the mayor because hes a lawyer who allowed what he already knew to be an unconstitutional law go on the books is perpetrating a fraud on the court, because like the rule states the mayor modified or reversed existing law without any good faith basis or argument for doing so.
you see most if not all of this crap would never get this far if the lawyers and politicians just followed the rules and the laws that are already there for them. then again if you're fortunate enough to be a lawyer and a mayor you can just appoint your lawyer friends to defend it. all for a nice fee of course. oink! oink!
we see on the secretary of state's website where the mayor's brother chris roy, jr. qualified for state representative for louisiana's twenty-fifth district. seeing how his brother the mayor operates, you would be a fool, a sucker to vote another one in to public office.
the mayor, the city council and everyone else who swore an oath to support the constitution and uphold the laws and yet had a hand in foisting this 'baggy pants' ordinance on the people should all be investigated for probably violating the louisiana constitution at: article x part three section 30.
the other day alexandria, louisiana city councilman charles frederick smith brought his stuttering, stammering, shuck and jive routine to the nation and the world courtesy of fox news. councilman smith was attempting to justify his 'baggy pants' ordinance, instead he managed to set alexandria's reputation back about twenty years.
shepherd smith, who could barely keep a straight face throughout the interview asks councilman smith why? "because of uh exposure of the undergarments and their sometimes showing the top of their butts." councilman smith said.
it would seem that councilman smith is on the side of the criminals and is trying to help them out because he says "we had one [baggy pants wearer] that was trying to run away from the police his pants fell and he tripped and they caught him" shepherd smith interjects "well see, it worked out great in that case now didnt it?" "i'am just saying" councilman smith replied.
we guess nike, converse, new balance, etc... arent welcome in alexandria either because later on in the interview councilman smith, incredulously tries to turn the issue into a racial one when he says that "nobody's saying anything about what ya'll address about the tennis industry where they making blue and red you got crips and bloods and these young peple out here getting killed over colors we not addressing that problem either" shepherd smith says "we just went from showing underwear to kids being killed!"
louisiana's political class are made up of nothing but con-artists, clowns, buffoons, liars, bozos you can go right down the list...
we did a little more research on the 'baggy pants' issue and found that back in the 2004 regular legislative session another self-hating negro -- then state representative (now state senator) derrick shepherd introduced a bill (see link) that would have created out of thin air "the crime of unlawfully wearing clothing which exposes undergarments or body parts." the bill hb 1703 (substitute for house bill 1626 by representative shepherd) said that
Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be required to perform three eight-hour days of community service at a fire department in the parish where he was convicted and in addition, may be required to pay a fine of not more than one hundred and seventy five dollars.
rep. shepherd, this silly clown, actually says that without this law the house pages will start to wear 'baggy pants' to work. lol. "are you gonna tell me that you want them (house pages) to walk these ailes as a right to tell us whether or not they have britches on their body to show us that? by voting against this bill you are telling them they have the right to walk these halls and say i dont have on britches and theres nothing you can do about it." -- state rep. derrick shepherd - this is the kind of dolts that we have writing the laws for this state.
inexplicably, state representative rick farrar, a lawyer and graduate of the southern university law center which is a majority black university voted for this bill while on the other hand state representative charlie dewitt who likes to play the "aw shucks" red neck routine voted against it.
in the video clip you will also notice that it was two other white guys representatives jack smith and danny martiny who spoke out and voted against the bill.
whether its atlanta, georgia and councilman c.t.martin or alexandria, louisiana and councilman charles frederick smith or the state house and then representative derrick shepherd -- the evidence shows that when its all said and done its black people that author and help pass racist legislation aimed against their own people.
the citizens and city of alexandria, louisiana made fox news (see link) the other day.
fox reported how:
"Alexandria's City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to ban the baring. Its ordinance allows some sag, but 3 inches or more can bring a fine of $25 to $200 and a requirement for community service."
when news finally broke on 23 august 2007 about how cities like delcambre, louisiana had passed and cities like atlanta and alexandria, louisiana were considering passing the same or similar ordinances -- the executive director, ms. debbie seagraves, of the american civil liberties union immediately went on record to remind everyone that "this is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," seagraves said.
a normal minded person would take this to mean that the american civil liberties union is going to eventually sue any or all of the municipalities that put 'baggy pants' laws on the books. so why would you unnecessarily put your city in harms way of a very likely federal civil action against it. not to mention the damage to your cities reputation after the american civil liberties makes a fool of it? of coz thoughts of the massive attorney and legal fees the city i.e. taxpayers will have to foot is never talked about. we see that in the city of pineville, louisiana's seventeen thousand and counting dollar legal fees to bring a suit thats not even provided for in the law.
three councilmen in shreveport, louisiana had the good sense to vote no, yet alexandria's seven councilmen including most curiously haberdasher harry silver unanimously voted the ordinance in. this shouldnt be surprising when just this past january they voted in the so called 'abandoned car' ordinance which like 'baggy pants' is promised, went down to court challenge and defeat. so when the attorney general's office comes to instruct the city council on louisiana open meetings law they need to throw in courses on common sense and the constitution. by the way we wonder what councilman silver's attitude towards this ordinance would be if the city was trying to outlaw a popular type of clothing that he sells?
we're told that a search was done of all the state and federal and appeals courts in the land and so far there are no 'baggy pants' cases been heard. this would seem to make it most ripe for an aclu challenge.
the citizens ought to demand a law that says that when a governmental body willfully and knowingly passes laws that the courts eventually strike down as unconstitutional they should have to pay the attorney fees court costs out of their own pocket (like was needed here for instance and would have helped here too) or better yet resign.
32) To consider final adoption of an ordinance adding Section 15-128 to the Alexandria City Code relative to appropriate dress for persons in certain public places; to prohibit public exposure in certain attire; to provide for fines and civil penalties. (LEGAL 8/28) Charles Frederick Smith
fortunately, mayor roy went on record and said that the 'baggy pants' ordinance is "overly broad in scope" and "vague"
mayor roy's going on record for the city attorney and himself like this means that he cannot sign this ordinance. it's clear that mayor roy must uphold his oath of office and veto this ordinance.
mayor roy and the rest of the citizens for that matter shouldnt worry about the city council. they are toast and here's why:
on 28 august 2007 in the run up to the council's 5 - 2 veto override vote the city coucil was addressed by a reverend david blunt.. theres some confusion right now as to the actual name of the reverend as rod noles said his name is "brown" but when council president everett hobbs introduced him it sounded to us like he said "reverend david blunt." so if you happen to know the good reverend or you can clarify what his name is, please let us know.
the good reverend told of how he one day he was in his repose and the lord opened his eyes as to what was going on with the mayor and the city council. the reverend said how the lord sent him a "strong premonition" about a new leader who was reading the law and the word and "under him there was a board, a council they were pulling him down and fighting against him" because they "weren't willing to follow leadership."
the lord sent a warning by his servant who is also a brother to the five stiff-necked and lawless ones on the city council and they scoffed at the lord's warning. regardless of the outcome of the roy v alexandria city council lawsuit the fate of the five stiff-necked ones is assured. god will not be mocked.
we applaud the mayor and city attorney for going on record questioning the constitutionality of this silly law. they need to do that in all things. we would be totally flabbergasted [gobsmacked even] if we learn that the mayor does sign this ordinance into law. besides why would the mayor who's aforethought is apparent want to likely and needlessly harm alexandria's reputation as well as put thousands of dollars of tax money at risk for the likes of councilman charles frederick smith's (one of the five stiff-necked ones) dumb ass?
we sure were happy to see central louisiana's main stream media finally catch up to the blogosphere yesterday, when both kalb here and the alexandria daily town talk here reported about the proposed 'baggy pants' ordinance -- the blogosphere only reported it....eight days previously. oh well.
click here to download the ordinance in two page .pdf
the alexandria, louisiana city council is made up of seven members of which five are black. these five will and have been the first ones to scream 'racism' when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. yet sadly as we've already seen this year with the racist and predatory 'abandoned car' ordinance the black councilmen will be the first ones to introduce and pass ordinances and laws which target their own people and in this case black children and young adults. it's pathetic.
this 'baggy pants' ordinance was introduced by councilman charles frederick smith who must be either a self-hating negro or is too old, too out of step, too senile or all of the above, to serve in this councilman capacity. he should resign his seat in favor of someone who has a working brain and compassion for his fellow men, women and children regardless of color or we might add choice of clothing style.
thankfully, in this story the ap interviewed ms. debbie seagraves with the american civil liberties union who explains the folly of cities like atlanta and alexandria who seek to introduce blatantly racist legislation:
Seagraves said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said the law could not be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.
"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," Seagraves said.
with all the legal maneuvering going on in alexandria lately between the mayor and the city council wouldnt it be hillfreakinglarious if the american civil liberties union came in and handed both the mayor and the city council their respective asses over this ordinance?
mayor roy would be well advised that should this ordinance pass to veto it. we dont really put much faith in the mayor's resolve in protecting the citizens civil liberties though -- after all he signed the 'abandoned car' ordinance an ordinance so flawed that anyone who's taken high school civics could see was unconstitutional.
likewise, the black citizens of alexandria would be well advised to wake-up and see who the real racists are in alexandria city government.
meanwhile, some of the comments over on rogers cadenhead's drudge retort blog concerning the atlanta 'baggy pants' ordinance are gems.
heres a few excerpts:
Someone should outlaw asswipes like this C.T. Martin. Or at the very least, get him laid. Posted by panchovilla
====
I'm sure that is the most important issue facing Atlanta today. What a fucking idiot. How much you want to bet that C.T. Martin is some sort of religious zealot??? Posted by danni
====
I don't see how that addresses baggy pants. Most people who wear their pants excessively low also have a 10XL t-shirt on hanging down to their knees, and you don't see any undergarments. I guess that's what you get when a bunch of 60 year old bureaucrats try to talk about fashion. Posted by JOE
====
Burkas for all would solve the problem. Maybe Islam IS on to something. Posted by Manypaths
====
"How stupid is this?"
Stupid like a fox! This law is just like the seat belt law, driving while on a cell phone, tinted windows, headphones, etc. It's aimed at giving the police another reason to stop someone and search them for any other violation they might have committed.
While these laws do little to remedy a perceived problem, they certainly line city coffers. No, this law isn't "stupid" at all. Posted by loonytarian
you can always tell when alexandria, la. city councilman charles frederick smith is up to something....the biggest giveaway is that his lips is moving...
now, we learn from todays alexandria city council legal committee meeting, that councilman smith has decided to advance the nanny state one more degree by introducing an ordinance:
to add section 15:128 to the alexandria code of ordinancs relative to appropriate dress for persons in certain public places; to prohibit public exposure and certain attire; to provide for fines and civil penalties and related matters.
councilman charles frederick smith explains "its just time out that uh i mean people walking around showing their underwears all this is baggy clothes....i mean you're going down the street and you're looking at these uh individuals i mean they showing they underclothes and stuff like this and i think that its not good for our community...i think its time for you to pull your panteses up and tighten they belt up.
i think its about time that we have a lot of respect for our community, we have a lot of tourism and things coming here and uh walking on jackson street you see and up and down the street lower third i think we ought to have respect for our community for our leaders and our public, so its going to involve a fine and its going to involve the parents and its going to be left up to the judge."
first off we think that people that wear the so called "baggy pants" are a bit silly and immature. however, if someone wants to look like a clown and dress that way they should be allowed to. besides they provide us with with a good laugh. it breaks up the monotony. all councilman smith, the city council and the administration are doing is creating a law that will bring about more ill feelings between mostly young black males and 'the man.'
the law is unenforceable and wont be enforced anyway. oh sure the police might tack this charge on to someone who is being arrested for something else. if councilman smith and his preacher are so concerned about 'baggy pants' (and you really have to wonder about someone's mental stability if they take offense at someones clothes even going so far as to think that the person is going out of their way to disrespect them personally) then why arent they out there on jackson street and lower third telling people to pull "they pantses up?" its because they know in about ten seconds they will get cracked up-side the head and rightfully so - so they send the police to do it instead.
The fake populist.
-
The following article was written by my friend, *Chauncey DeVega*, for *Salon
Magazine. *
"Donald Trump is not a real populist. That fact will not cha...
Announcement: Next Lobbying Deadline
-
*Lobbying Filing Deadline*
The deadline for lobbyists to file the Expenditure Report covering May 1,
2026 - May 31, 2026 is June 25, 2026.
Police Jury meets Tuesday
-
The Lincoln Parish Police Jury will meet Tuesday, June 13, Lincoln Parish
Court House, 100 West Texas, third floor. Here are the meeting times and
agendas....
Electoral Deter-men-hers
-
Virgotex summarized the matrix of root voting impulses for Dems in 2020:
Democratic voters don't want "another" white male. They want a female
candidate...
Welcome to the Alexandria Postcard Collection
-
Postcards are an important medium in telling stories of the past. They are
historical masterpieces, showing life at points in time.
Greetings from Alexandr...
Rain Update, 1:10 p.m.
-
Our OEP Director has been asked about the effect the rain from folks who
were concerned about it over topping. The pic below was taken today and
show 6-7″ ...
brief dashcam clip of alleged sex offender arrest
-
brief dashcam clip of alleged sex offender arrest
some guy on a bicycle was allegedly looking at children through binoculars
across the street from the k...
Saying goodbye to our Old House
-
I never thought this day would come. We had to say goodbye to the “Big
House”, the old house, the Hynson-Ringgold house (and many other names)….
We were tr...
57th presidential inauguration 21 january 2013
-
57th presidential inauguration 21 january 2013
oath of office and speech + more.
From: wesawthat1
Views: 748
10 ratings
Time: 57:56 More in News & Politics
Part 6: The Marriage Feast
-
The souls and spirits of those who placed their faith in the Messiah are
reunited with resurrected bodies at the return of Christ, followed by the
transfor...
Responding to Ben Dunson’s Critique of Kinism
-
By Davis Carlton Dr. Ben Dunson, Professor of New Testament at Greenville
Presbyterian Theological Seminary, has posted an article critiquing Kinism.
Dunso...
The Real Origins of Neocons
-
*Russian Lies: Shadow of Jabotinksy*
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
Philip Weiss reviews *They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, ...
Our Future Looks Glorious…if We Repent
-
“The Lord will not let the righteous go hungry…” ~ Proverbs 10:3 I remember
how this text struck me as I read it for the first time as a young boy[...]
Last Days Lunacy and End Times Madness
-
Podcast: LAST DAYS LUNACY and END TIMES MADNESS (The following commentary
is a reprint of the chapter Bible Basics 101: Last Days/End Times and The
Second ...
click here to download four page .pdf [109 kb]
according to the petition, La. R.S. 26:286 allows those citizens aged 18 - 20 to enter into a bar -- but they can't purchase or consume alcohol.
18 USC § 371
====
video player
you can always tell when alexandria, la. city councilman charles frederick smith is up to something....the biggest giveaway is that his lips is moving...
