I will not stay quiet and be told that up is down and day is night.

The Democrats and their allies lie all the time without a second thought. The most recent time that got me going was when I watched Fox 26 news on April 5 and heard a professor say that the Texas House bill to make elections more secure will somehow disenfranchise minority voters.

Why do the Democrats insist on making everything about race and dividing the country based on skin color? Is it because they prosper when anyone can vote without identification? Why do people not have identification or why can’t they prove where they live? The answer is simple; they are likely voting illegally.

By the way, if you forget your ID you can cast a provisional vote that will count when you prove where you live and who you are.

Someone must stand up for honest voting practices — and Texas Republicans are. I'm a proud Texan and Republican. I invite any Democrat to show that requiring identification or proof of residence is racist. Unless you live on the street, you must prove who you are to get a house or an apartment.

Erna Pelto

La Marque


Recommended for you

(20) comments

Carlos Ponce

[thumbup] Erna Pelto !

Democrats are fighting voter integrity because their ideas don't work. None of the proposed bills will disenfranchise any legitimate vote. Like senile Joe they have to make things up. Even Liberal WAPO called him out on that with four Pinocchios.

George Laiacona

Republicans will continue to come up with new ideas as just how to suppress the minority voter. For those of you that don’t read, the idea of voter suppression has been the agenda of the Republicans for 150 years.

Gary Miller

George> You offer a typical liberal lie. Proved by the facts. !50 years ago Republicans were fighting slavery and having won were fighting Democrat Jim Crow laws, 55 years ago they won the law against Jim Crow and have every since tried to bring minorities into equality. Slavery and Jim Crow were Democrat attempts at keeping Black American citizens in bondage,

Lisa Gray

Are you trying to say that minorities do not have the intellect to obtain proper ID? The same kind of ID that is required to get on a plane, open a bank account or buy a car? Because that is what it sounds like. You people who are adverse to voter ID laws only want illegal votes because you can't win otherwise.

Carlos Ponce

George Laiacona posts, "For those of you that don’t read, the idea of voter suppression has been the agenda of the Republicans for 150 years."

No proof of this because it never happened. And remember, it was Democrats who wore the white hoodies and burned crosses.

Kenneth Cambiano

Really! We should all act like Americans regardless of anything. This country has gone to hell and we are the only ones that can fix it. It’s time to start. It doesn’t matter what political stand you take act like an American.

Dan Freeman

A Democratic Party controlled Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the civil rights movement on August 6, 1965, subsequently Democrat and Republican Congresses amended the Act five times to expand its protections. This law and these amendments to enforced the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.

Sadly portions of the Act have been weakened by a conservative Supreme Court allowing various Republican legislatures undermine the Act’s intent and effectiveness. It is time to re assert the freedoms that Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush signed into law.

Carlos Ponce

"A Democratic Party controlled Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965." True but in the Senate the tally was 77 for, 19 against. Broken down by party that was:

Democrats 47 for, 19 against, 4 not voting.

Republicans 20 for, 2 against.

The measure would not have passed without Republican votes, 94% of Republicans voting FOR the Act.

Which Supreme Court approved measures weakened the Act?

Dan Freeman

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

Carlos Ponce

In Shelby v. Holder the Supreme Court of the United states found two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unConstitutional.

So they included un- Constitutional provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Dan Freeman claims their removal "weakened the Act". Sounds like whoever wrote those provisions did not do their homework.

Common sense tells us that if those provisions were un-Constitutional they should never have been included in the Bill.

David Hardee

Voter suppression is only the result of that voter being so stupid they find a way to get a ballot and vote. Your desire is that every person that can breathe be supplied at least one ballot with NO REQUIMENTS and submit it with NO OVERSIGHTS. That is lunacy.

As to your rendition of voter and civil rights a little more than your project as wonderful needs to be explored for the overall effects on our society.

Mr. Freeman, your name elicits thoughts of a free man but your posting is always in support of the segregation of the USA by one of the diversities that the particular identity(s) that are now culturing the Constitution. there is a difference between free man and free men, The collective men cover all while man is an individual.

To your rendition of the Act and amendments are like most is self-serving and discounts all rationals that evolved the Bill of Rights into the Constitution and caused the philosophy and policies to begin the "all men" to be segregations.

Voting Rights was the issue originally and it expanded into usurping the States Right (school but in 1965 the issue by destroying the collective that "all men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and that the "aim of all political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man," including "liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression."

The segregation of our society was completed in 1965 Civil Rights (not voting inspired) Amendments on which the accidental president Lyndon Johnson established the "Great Society" with revenues from S.S. and FICA taxes and set in motion the tentacles of the federal government to reach into every aspect of the individuals' life. The progressive liberal's movement was born and on -

The successes of women, and black civil rights, activists sought and achieved being identified as a segment in the constitution as races, genders, religions, sexual orientation and sought entitlements, equal treatment in other social relationships such as employment and property rights, etc.

All men had been fractured into personal characteristics of the individual,s and tribes in the Democratic Big Tent. For the last 60 years, the effects of 1965, have been the corruption of the MORES of our society. The Great Society, three new departments of HEALTH, EDUCATION, and WELFARE have been disastrous.

There was no benevolent of good intent by Lyndon. He was stimulated by a hope to get his big nose on Mount Rushmore.

If you want a country or a cake no ingredients can be entitled to be independently identified for special consideration. E Pluribus Unum.


Irwin Fletcher

April Fools was on the first. Just because you can say something in the opinion section, doesn’t mean you should.

George Laiacona

I suggest that you read more concerning Vice President Johnson. He and many others after him did nothing to improve Lincoln’s ideas concerning minorities black, yellow ,red , or white. The Republicans took over where the Southern Democrats left off. Voter suppression has been the mainstream agenda ever since . I have read many books that show the Republicans efforts to suppress the minority voters all over the country. The newest ideas come from disgruntled Republicans that lost the last election. By the time the next election rolls around there will be all kinds of political untruths expressed by both parties in order to try and take over the government.

David Hardee

Sir, President Lincoln never reflected on minorities' in our society. Lincoln abhorred and .reflected on slavery in America. He resisted action on eliminating slavery because he like Jefferson had known that freeing slaves into the general population needed a plan to protect them and or to recolonize them to their place of origin. His Emancipation Proclamation was a practical and expedient maneuver to 1. address the overwhelming influx of slave escaping from the south into the north, and 2. utilize the slaves in the war,

Read Jeffersons 1887 State of The Union's address to Virginia for an understanding of the dilemma about freeing the slaves into the general population. Some of Jefferson's remarks are disturbing but the prophecy was correct.

You, Sir, are correct that Johnson and others did not make improvements for minorities. All that was done under CIVIL RIGHTS appeared to be benevolent but was actually condescending and set up a new form of segregation by making the Constitution a document with specificity for segments of the population.

It is an indisputable fact that alone that wants to cast a vote can. If any individual is unable to navigate through some obstruction to get and cast a ballot it is because they are lazy, stupid, or both.

Your caveat - "all kinds of political untruths expressed by both parties in order to try and take over the government." is so correct. Those "untruths" are why our country has not been able to cohese under E Pluribus Unum. We have made progress on race relations. But the Politicians and media using every incident to irritate and create animosity.

Thomas Carpenter

It appears Republican Matt Gaetz is now qualified to run for the White House. Maybe he'll get Roy Moore as his running mate. We can all vote early and often on that race.

Carlos Ponce

I'm glad yo see Matt Gaetz as an honorable man, honorable enough to sit in the White House. But if selected he would choose someone other than Roy Moore. They will select a younger man. Oh, I now realize why you would prefer Roy Moore. Democrats prefer older men.

Jim Forsythe

Roy Moore: Feb 11, 1947

Donald Trump:Jun.14, 1946

Carlos Ponce

Thomas Carpenter:"Maybe he'll get Roy Moore as his running mate."

Carlos Ponce: "But if selected he would choose someone other than Roy Moore. They will select a younger man. "

Jim, Donald Trump was NEVER anyone's running mate.

domenico nuckols

Mr. Gates is a child molester current simple honorable man Carlos she got to be up your ass

Carlos Ponce

"Mr. Gates"?????? Are we reading the same thread?

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.