Teresa Kumelski's letter regarding the Violence Against Women Act was less than truthful ("Weber voted against the best interests of women," The Daily News, April 9).

This act has been reauthorized before, but the current one under consideration (HR 1585), has added devious gun control provisions and worrisome attacks on due process. However, Sen. Joni Ernst from Iowa is working on a Senate version of this, but without the anti-gun, anti-due process provisions.

Wake up, people; don't be misled.

Read and study the issues the media and others present, many times a synopsis is far from facts. By the way, my thanks to Rep. Randy Weber, who did read and study HR 1585, and knew its sneakily added proposals pose a real infringement on my rights and freedoms as an American citizen.

Sandra Woodford

Texas City

Locations

(74) comments

Steve Fouga

Or by conservative falsehoods. Or any falsehoods. Pay attention and don't be confused by rhetoric... [wink]

Rusty Schroeder

Adam Schiff approves this message. :)

Steve Fouga

I hope anybody would. It's common sense. [cool]

Rusty Schroeder

Steve you humor me, Adam Schiff spread more falsehoods and total lies which he guaranteed would prove him right upon the conclusion of the Mueller report. When they did not, he discredited the report as well as the AG. Now you tell me where common sense is hiding in his reasoning. He is a liberal spreading and believing his own parties agenda through his own false hoods, it's sickening. Get ready for 2020, because it's coming quicker than Biden can grope a female. [sneaky]

Steve Fouga

Have you seen the conclusion of the Mueller Report? Myself, I'm still waiting for it to be released.

That said, do you disagree with my comment, or just being a jerk?

Rusty Schroeder

I don't agree with your first sentence, you start with a bias. Do you agree with Schiff jumping from on ship to another because he was wrong? Or are you just burying your head in the sand ?

Steve Fouga

Jumping from one ship to another? What?? Have you even been paying attention for the past 2 years?

I start with a bias? Are you kidding? I'm one of the least biased people on this forum. And a Trump supporter accusing someone else of spreading falsehoods?? You're killin' me, Rusty! [beam]

Robert Braeking

The liberal agenda cannot be presented without lies and half-truths. If their true intentions were known they would not get a single vote.

Gary Miller

No votes from informed citizens. They feed their plantation masses lies and half truths to keep them uninformed. Free(?) sex, smack and booze is the inner city bread and circus.

Carlos Ponce

Thank you Randy Weber for daring to read the text of the bill and understand the consequences of every phrase inserted into it. Caveat Lector. What started out as a decent bill turned into an anti-Second Amendment bill. Not to worry. The bill will not make it through the Senate with these anti-Second Amendment provisions.

Bailey Jones

Here's an idea I'll just put out here to wither and die - anyone who has an interest in politics and political messages should do themselves a favor and spend some time researching Campaigns Inc., the first political consulting firm, created by husband and wife team Clem Whitaker and Leone Baxter. You can look them up on Wikipedia. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for modern political messaging, based on simple rules such as "The average American doesn't want to be educated; he doesn't want to improve his mind; he doesn't even want to work, consciously, at being a good citizen. Most every American likes to be entertained. He likes the movies; he likes the mysteries; he likes the fireworks and parades…so if you can't fight, put on a show!"
Campaigns,Inc primarily worked with conservatives, but due to their success, their techniques are now used by all parties and candidates. Becoming aware of how you're being manipulated won't make you change parties or ideologies, but it will give you the power to be less of a tool. (Does require reading, though.)

Wendy Maceo-Melton

Add to them, Lee Atwater, Roger Cohn, and Karl Rove. However, take it even further back and study the Roman Republic. They'd already figured out that by keeping their citizens fed and entertained, anything could be done without adversity from the masses.

Rusty Schroeder

The Romans ? Good ness, they fed people to lions in the Coliseum. It's 2019, I don't think that kind of entertainment for the masses will be allowed. Although it would keep the lions fed. [whistling]

Diane Turski

Sandra, your "rights and freedoms" to buy a gun are only being infringed upon if you are a stalker or you have been convicted of domestic violence. That is what the bill says. Randy Weber once again bowed down to his NRA gods to vote to allow stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators to buy guns to use against their victims.

Wendy Maceo-Melton

Again, folks don't necessarily read the texts at all. They'd rather believe that the Democrats are taking away their guns. How long have the conservatives been saying this? Has it happened? NO. What should happen is gun laws that protect our children and us from folks who shouldn't own a gun due to mental issues. Also, if someone is convicted of stalking or spousal abuse, they shouldn't own guns either, since they've exhibited a propensity to violence. One other type of restriction I think is needed, and that is restricting automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I thoroughly support hunting for recreation and hand guns for protection, but the only thing a militarized weapon is good or is killing and killing many as fast as possible. So, Democrats won't take your guns away but we will keep trying to make gun ownership responsible and safe. Our children should not be afraid to attend school. And they DO.

Rusty Schroeder

You don't have a clue, your post is full of bias and hypocrisy. Democrats won't take your guns away but yet you want semi-automatic weapons restricted. Ever heard of a Remington Model 1100 ? It's probably one of the most used shotguns used by sportsmen for bird hunting, it is a semi-automatic shotgun. Over half of the pistols in the US are semi-automatic handguns, used for self protection and recreational enjoyment. President Trump banned the sale and ownership of bumpstocks this year, seems to me he is doing things. What did Obama or Clinton do ? So Democrats DO want to restrict and limit guns to the " land of the free ", maybe you should educate yourself on firearms before your next post.

Paula Flinn

You cannot ban hunting rifles and shotguns. I agree with the rest of your post, Wendy. The mentally ill should not be able to buy guns. Neither should felons. But bad guys will always find a way to buy guns. It’s just a fact.

Carlos Ponce

"The mentally ill should not be able to buy guns." Problem is that in the minds of some Liberals in power ANYONE who owns a firearm is "mentally ill".
Hey, I think anyone who fantasizes about running over children should be declared mentally ill - but that's just me.[innocent]
"Then one day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles. I knew, however, that this happiness and sense of freedom were much too overwhelming for them. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams. As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head. My dream was abruptly ended when I heard a loud banging on the front window. It was an old man, who was using his cane to awaken me. He might have been a witness to my act of love. I was not sure, nor did I care. It was simply ecstasy. As I drove home, I envisioned myself committing more of these 'acts of love', and after a while, I had no trouble carrying them out."

Don Schlessinger

Paula, the Socialists are now advocating allowing convicted felons to vote. If they can vote why can't they own firearms?

Gary Miller

Government has no right to decide for me which gun I can use for hunting, target sports or self protection. If I want a AR 15 for target sports I have the right to use it for hunting also. How many rounds is in the clip or in a box in my pocket doesn't determine it's usefulness for both purposes. Just as it has no right to decide if I need a gun.

Gary Miller

Paula. Our Constitution guarantees our right to keep and carry guns. It does not guarantee us the right to hunt. If the anti gun people ever try to ban hunting I hope to have a good gun for hunting anti gun nuts.

Bailey Jones

I actually agree with you, Don. Once a person has completed his debt to society, he should be granted all the rights he lost while incarcerated. It might be reasonable to restrict gun ownership by a felon who used a gun to commit a crime (or other crime specific restrictions - like not granting an insurance license to an insurance fraudster, residential restrictions on sexual predators, etc), but otherwise - give them the right to vote, to own a gun, to hold a job, etc. We have a tendency in this country to never forgive, I believe we can do better.

Don Schlessinger

And the Tooth Fairy is real.

Gary Miller

IF you don't demand the truth before you vote you'll wish you had after you vote.

Steve Fouga

I'm actually more concerned with whether YOU will demand the truth before you vote.

Gary Miller

Steve. Don't worry about it. In america the dumbest voter is in the greatest demand.

Steve Fouga

On that we can agree.

Jarvis Buckley

Socialists in denial

Emile Pope

donald and the Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. At least his supporters will have weapons to hunt for food...

Carlos Ponce

Usual donkey hooey with no basis in reality. No way Emile can back his statement.

Emile Pope

Exactly what proof would accept? None.

Carlos Ponce

Emile, provide a link where a Republican says he or she is trying to take away healthcare, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Providing a Liberal who CLAIMS Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid will NOT suffice.

Jim Forsythe

12 March 2019
"President Trump's 2020 budget proposal calls for major reductions in spending on Medicare and Medicaid.
His fiscal 2020 proposal unveiled Monday calls for reductions in funding for Medicare and Medicaid relative to current law. Over a decade, the plan would shave an estimated $800 billion or more off Medicare, which covers older Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and various reports. It would also cut spending on Medicaid, the federal-state program that insures low-income Americans, by more than $200 billion while setting up block grants to states."
This is added to a increase in the number of people becoming of age for the programs, which means less money available for each person.

Carlos Ponce

Jim Forsythe posts, "President Trump's 2020 budget proposal calls for major reductions in spending on Medicare and Medicaid."
Here we go again!
Definition of reduction - 1. The act or process of reducing. 2. The result of reducing: a reduction in absenteeism. 3. The amount by which something is lessened or diminished
Definition of reduce - To bring down, as in extent, amount, or degree; diminish. Synonym - DECREASE
From "Budget for a Better America - Fiscal year 2020"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf
Medicare p109 (113 of PDF)
2018 582 Million which INCREASES to
2019 645 Million which INCREASES to
2020 702 Million which INCREASES to
2021 762 Million which INCREASES to
2022 861 Million which INCREASES to
2023 892 Million which INCREASES to
2024 920 Million which INCREASES to
2025 1,038 Million which INCREASES to
2026 1,121 Million which INCREASES to
2027 1,202 Million which INCREASES to
2028 1,385 Million
Jim, it's obvious that the numbers for Medicare are INCREASING, no reduction at all. Similar numbers on same page for Medicaid.

Jim Forsythe

Over a decade, the plan would shave an estimated $800 billion or more off Medicare, which covers older Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and various reports. It would also cut spending on Medicaid, the federal-state program that insures low-income Americans, by more than $200 billion while setting up block grants to states."

Carlos Ponce

Jim is quoting from a CNBC article but forgot to read
"On Monday, acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said the president is “not cutting Medicare in this budget”...

Carlos Ponce

"Over a decade,yadda yadda yadda"
Jim, Look at the numbers from the ACTUAL Budget Proposal. Based on your Texas City High School Education, are the numbers INCREASING or DECREASING?

Carlos Ponce

" Emile Pope Apr 14, 2019 10:25am
donald and the Republicans are trying to take away your healthcare, Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. At least his supporters will have weapons to hunt for food..."
Discussion over because you lost your argument, never brought up Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Jim tried to help you but in the light of truth that fell flat.
And since the ACA is still in place even your argument falls short.
"And even after the individual mandate repeal goes into effect the following year, Obamacare’s individual insurance markets, federal subsidies to help Americans pay monthly insurance premiums, and Medicaid expansion in the dozens of states that implemented it will all still be in effect barring further Congressional action."
http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/tax-bill-individual-mandate-obamacare/
What was removed from the THOUSANDS of Obamacare pages? Very, very little.
PART VIII—INDIVIDUAL MANDATE SEC. 11081.
ELIMINATION OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS FAILING TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(c) is amended— (1) in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking ‘‘2.5 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘Zero percent’’, and (2) in paragraph (3)— (A) by striking ‘‘$695’’ in subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘‘$0’’, and (B) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2018.
https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ97/PLAW-115publ97.pdf
Obamacare was a straw man if the replacement of "2.5" with "Zero" and "$695" with "$0" could undo it.

Emile Pope

"donald and the Republicans are TRYING to take away your healthcare"...let someone read it to you next time...

Carlos Ponce

No Emile, The ACA was never a real healthcare plan, nor was it "affordable". Republicans had a plan to replace it but the senator from Arizona went back on his word and voted against it.

Emile Pope

the republican senator. not our fault that even the members of donald's own party wouldn't support his so called healthcare plan...

Carlos Ponce

So all those votes for President rump's Health care Proposal came from Democrats? Silly Emile.

Emile Pope

All of the Democrats and Independents voted against donald's farce. And also THREE republicans. Can't even get his own party to vote for his joke of a healthcare bill...

Carlos Ponce

"And also THREE republicans." Wow, THREE Republicans. [rolleyes]

Emile Pope

The fact that the AG went to court to argue that the ACA should be completely eliminated although there was no replacement available and you failed to acknowledge it show that facts and proof mean nothing to you...

Carlos Ponce

The ACA is not Constitutional.
Judge Reed C. O'Connor, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, ruled the Affordable Care Act is Unconstitutional
What did you expect the Attorney General to say?
We know that the ACA is Unconstitutional but let it slide?
What other pieces of Unconstitutional Legislation does Emile want left on the books?
And you mention nothing about Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

Jim Forsythe

Until and if the US Supreme Court rules, it remains in place.
"On December 2018, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the repeal of this "essential" part of the law meant the entirety of Obamacare is therefore unconstitutional.
The law, however, remains in place as an appeal heads to the US Supreme Court."
If Trump wants to get rid of it, all he has to do is replace it with sometime better, that a majority of the House and the Senate agree with.

Gary Scoggin

Just because one District judge rules it unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. That’s ultimately for scotus to decide. But the Administration showed its preferences in not defending the law.

Carlos Ponce

Let's say the Supreme Court rules it Unconstitutional before the end of the year. You would STILL have insurance for the remainder of 2019. Each company provider has made an agreement to provide insurance for all of 2019. But then there will be impetus for Congress to enact SOMETHING that is CONSTITUTIONAL - for each subsequent year.

Gary Scoggin

Do you really think Congresshas the impetus to do anything but act in in a narrow and partisan manner? They’ve learned to get re-elected by blaming the other guys for their lack of action. This is true of both parties.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos you made the statement "The ACA is not Constitutional" which may never come to being. Until the US Supreme Court rules, you are just hoping.
If it is ever repealed, so I guess you are talking about repeal and replace. Trump has not been able to repeal, and he is going to replace it with what?
The votes for this will come from what Senators and House members?

The Republicans had the numbers but could not do it. Now they do not have the numbers and they are going to pass what ever Trump comes up with, how?
Any party that tries to mess with insurance, is messing with a poison pill.

Carlos Ponce

Read the decision. The reasons the judge gave are valid: It's just a matter of time.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/211-texas-order-granting-plaintiffs-partial-summary-judgment.pdf

Emile Pope

Who repealed the "essential" part of the legislation? Republicans of course...

Carlos Ponce

"Who repealed the "essential" part of the legislation?"
Congress did.

Emile Pope

the republican congress. you asked for proof and it was supplied. the fact that you agree means this discussion is over...

Gary Scoggin

I agree with the headline here. The Democrats are only telling half truths. And the Republicans are only telling the other half.

Jarvis Buckley

Husain rules, right Emile

Carlos Ponce

"Don't be misled by liberal half truths " AND don't be misled by Liberal full blown lies. I remember several of our GCDN Liberal forum posters writing that there were NO middle class tax cuts. (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!)
But even the Über - Liberal New York Times writes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html
"Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut
Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.
If you’re an American taxpayer, you probably got a tax cut last year. And there’s a good chance you don’t believe it.
To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase."
Can't get the NYT on your computer? Don't worry. It was repeated on several other outlets:
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/face-it-you-probably-got-a-tax-cut/
https://www.gingdu.com/face-it-you-probably-got-a-tax-cut/
https://www.viportal.co/face-it-you-probably-got-a-tax-cut/

Emile Pope

For someone who is innocent of any crimes, donald is really trying to fight revealing any evidence against him. There is no doubt that donald is a crook and his followers know it. They’re just hoping that he can get away with it...

Carlos Ponce

"For someone who is innocent of any crimes, donald is really trying to fight revealing any evidence against him," Emile posts.
Apparently the concept of "innocent unless proven guilty" is above your IQ.
Let's say someone accused Emile of crimes - WITHOUT proof just because they don't like him and then lodged a series of investigations trying to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING against him. Emile would call that harassment and it would also be against the law.

Emile Pope

If I were innocent, I wouldn't care. That's their waste of time. I'd go on with my life and tell them to call me if they needed me. But if I were guilty I would do everything to derail the investigation and try to hide everything I could. And I would denounce the investigators as being biased against me while refusing to testify about anything. Sound familiar? If it doesn't then perhaps you can have someone explain it to you.

Carlos Ponce

Most people, if innocent wouldn't do that.
Okay Emile, post your last 6 years of Income Tax returns for us to see. Please provide a list of ALL friends, relatives and acquaintances so they too may be investigated. By YOUR standards, if you do not, you must be hiding something.

Gary Scoggin

If Emile were running for President I’d expect him to do just that. Carlos, where you and I disagree is that I hold a President to a higher standard, not a lower one.

Emile Pope

Investigated for what? I haven't been accused of anything unlike donald. Furthermore, if I were the investigators would have had access to all of the information requested of me with or without my consent. The Treasury department has no right to refuse to submit Donald's to Congress. And donald doesn't have the right to tell them to. But then crooks are good at breaking the law...

Emile Pope

The innocent president that does everything guilty people do...

Carlos Ponce

"Investigated for what? I haven't been accused of anything unlike donald. "
It doesn't matter, Emile. The accusations against Donal Trump were made up. Let's just say it's a "fishing expedition - just like the investigation into Trump. Since you have not produced anything looks like you're HIDING something - according to Emile Pope's way of thinking. What ARE you hiding, Emile? And we'd like to see your school records too!

Carlos Ponce

Gary S. "where you and I disagree is that I hold a President to a higher standard, not a lower one"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
The laws that govern the president's behavior are the same as those held to every American unless noted in the Constitution. You as an individual may hold any standard to anyone - but they are not LEGALLY binding

Emile Pope

Innocent people welcome scrutiny and investigation. Guilty people always do the opposite. Innocent people testify. Guilty people hide behind lawyers and refuse to. Sound familiar? If he had nothing to hide...

Carlos Ponce

So, how about revealing your Income Tax records, Emile, and your grades. BY YOUR STANDARDS, you must be HIDING something since you REFUSE.

Emile Pope

Your president is a crook. Your president is a crook. Your president is a crook...

Emile Pope

Since you are unfamiliar with the law, donald doesn’t get to decide if his taxes are released to Congress. The Treasury Department must release them to Congress when someone with the authority to do so requests them...

Jim Forsythe

When the House asks for my returns, they can have them.
If I run for President, I will release them.
Carlos asks for my returns, he is out of luck because he is has no right to my returns.

Trumps promised “But I have no objection to certainly showing tax returns.” but his not doing so , say's it all.
Trump has a different definition of the words certainly, no objection and promise .
In an interview with talk radio host Hugh Hewitt in February of 2015, Donald Trump said that would “certainly” release his tax returns if he ran for president, saying he had “no objection” to the idea.
“I would release tax returns,” Trump said, “and I would also explain to people that as a person that’s looking to make money, I’m in the business of making money… and if I won, I’d make money for our country.”
Hewitt asked how many years of tax returns he would release, but Trump couldn’t give an answer. “I don’t know, I actually have not even thought of that,” he said.
“I think two or three years would be great,” Hewitt offered up.
“We’ll take a good strong look at that…” Trump promised. “But I have no objection to certainly showing tax returns.”


Carlos Ponce

Looks like Emile is unfamiliar with the law. Let me introduce you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
"f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure."
Now, does Emile need a translator or do you understand that the law says the they cannot single out the returns of a "particular taxpayer".
"except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer "

Emile Pope

"SHALL BEFURNISHED TO SUCH COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN SITTING IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION" I notice that you omitted that part. Do you know the definition of "shall"?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
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.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

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