"American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America."
(First Message to Congress, December 1923)
"My opinion, with respect to emigration, is that except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions, there is no need of encouragement, while the policy or advantage of its taking place in a body...may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them."
(Letter to John Adams, Nov. 15, 1794)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Treasury is open for withdrawals...
Well now they have gone and done it. The Senate passed the national health care bill today and now it goes to committee. In committee representatives from both houses of congress will try to hammer out any differences in the two different versions of the bill. With any luck the anti-abortion and pro-abortion side will collide and the bill will ultimately fail, but I am not very hopeful of that happening. In November we will have to elect politicians that promise to repeal this crappy piece of intrusive legislation.
Many Americans for the first time have seen the way votes are negotiated for and paid for. Everyone knows that Ben Nelson of Nebraska held out until he was guaranteed his state would never have to pay for the mandatory expansion of Medicaid this bill will place upon the states. Republicans are calling his payoff the "Nebraska kickback"
Most Americans know about the second Louisianna Purchase that happened when Senator Landrieu of Louisianna sold her vote for, as she so proudly stated on the senate floor, $300 million.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nabbed $10 billion for his state and Senator Conrad absconded with money for the doctors in his state that treat medicare patients.
Now there are grumblings by Democrat Senators that supported the plan all along that they did not get what their vote is worth and now they are wondering where their share of the money is. During the negotiations in committee this jealousy and in-fighting among the Democrats may be the best hope conservatives have of this bill failing.
The greatest hope we have of this bill failing is the several states that are questioning the constitutionality of this bill under the "equal opportunity" clause of the Constitution that says all states must be treated equally.
Everyone please call your representatives and let them know the majority of us do not want this bill force fed to us.
Many Americans for the first time have seen the way votes are negotiated for and paid for. Everyone knows that Ben Nelson of Nebraska held out until he was guaranteed his state would never have to pay for the mandatory expansion of Medicaid this bill will place upon the states. Republicans are calling his payoff the "Nebraska kickback"
Most Americans know about the second Louisianna Purchase that happened when Senator Landrieu of Louisianna sold her vote for, as she so proudly stated on the senate floor, $300 million.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nabbed $10 billion for his state and Senator Conrad absconded with money for the doctors in his state that treat medicare patients.
Now there are grumblings by Democrat Senators that supported the plan all along that they did not get what their vote is worth and now they are wondering where their share of the money is. During the negotiations in committee this jealousy and in-fighting among the Democrats may be the best hope conservatives have of this bill failing.
The greatest hope we have of this bill failing is the several states that are questioning the constitutionality of this bill under the "equal opportunity" clause of the Constitution that says all states must be treated equally.
Everyone please call your representatives and let them know the majority of us do not want this bill force fed to us.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Are we ready for honest politicians?
Recently I saw pollster Frank Luntz on Fox News’s Sean Hannity show. Mr. Luntz answered a question from Mr. Hannity by saying “What Americans want most from their political leaders is the truth.” Mr. Luntz continued by saying “Americans want politicians that say what they mean and mean what they say”. I am not sure I believe this when politicians begin talking about entitlement programs.
In 2005 President George W. Bush warned of shortfalls looming in the coming years for the Social Security program. His plan to privatize Social security was met with scorn and disbelief. Many Democrats stated the President was crying wolf and there really was no problem with Social Security. When they managed to convince the public there was no problem with Social Security Bush’s goal of privatization became unattainable. President Bush learned a lesson many politicians already new; Entitlements are the third rail of politics. In other words any attempt to change the system could lead to the abrupt end of political careers.
In 2005 then Senate minority leader Harry Reid went so far as to claim “Social Security and Medicare are on sound financial footing for decades to come.” In fact Reid claimed the Republicans were trying to take Social Security away from senior citizens. I do not remember any politicians arguing to loudly against Senator Reid, after all who wants to be known as the evil person that would deny the elderly their benefits.
Lately some Democrats have contemplated expanding Medicare to cover people age 55 to 65. This plan would add approximately 35 million people to the Medicare plan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi is just one of many people that approve of this plan.
The truth is Medicare is a program that is unsustainable. In May, as they do every year, the trustees for Social Security and Medicare issued their annual report regarding the programs solvency. The trustees report the Medicare program will exhaust all of its funds by 2017 (1). In 2008 there were 45 million people enrolled in Medicare which had a cost of $386 billion. It is projected that by the year 2030 there will be 78 million people in the Medicare program and over the next 75 years Medicare represents an unfunded liability of $85.6 trillion (2). This is the estimate before adding 35 million people aged 55 to 64 to the program. President Bush had the right idea about privatizing; he just chose the wrong program to reform.
Many Americans refuse to listen to the truth about Medicare. We threaten the politicians, by virtue of our vote, when they tell us everything really is not o.k… What politician would risk their job by being honest with the public when it is far easier to just tell us what we want to hear?
The truth is not until the American public prepares itself for the truth and then demands honesty from the politicians will anything improve.
(1)www.Washington examiner.com/opinion/The-gathering-storm-on-social-security and-medicare-44970857.html
(2)www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm#top
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
In 2005 President George W. Bush warned of shortfalls looming in the coming years for the Social Security program. His plan to privatize Social security was met with scorn and disbelief. Many Democrats stated the President was crying wolf and there really was no problem with Social Security. When they managed to convince the public there was no problem with Social Security Bush’s goal of privatization became unattainable. President Bush learned a lesson many politicians already new; Entitlements are the third rail of politics. In other words any attempt to change the system could lead to the abrupt end of political careers.
In 2005 then Senate minority leader Harry Reid went so far as to claim “Social Security and Medicare are on sound financial footing for decades to come.” In fact Reid claimed the Republicans were trying to take Social Security away from senior citizens. I do not remember any politicians arguing to loudly against Senator Reid, after all who wants to be known as the evil person that would deny the elderly their benefits.
Lately some Democrats have contemplated expanding Medicare to cover people age 55 to 65. This plan would add approximately 35 million people to the Medicare plan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi is just one of many people that approve of this plan.
The truth is Medicare is a program that is unsustainable. In May, as they do every year, the trustees for Social Security and Medicare issued their annual report regarding the programs solvency. The trustees report the Medicare program will exhaust all of its funds by 2017 (1). In 2008 there were 45 million people enrolled in Medicare which had a cost of $386 billion. It is projected that by the year 2030 there will be 78 million people in the Medicare program and over the next 75 years Medicare represents an unfunded liability of $85.6 trillion (2). This is the estimate before adding 35 million people aged 55 to 64 to the program. President Bush had the right idea about privatizing; he just chose the wrong program to reform.
Many Americans refuse to listen to the truth about Medicare. We threaten the politicians, by virtue of our vote, when they tell us everything really is not o.k… What politician would risk their job by being honest with the public when it is far easier to just tell us what we want to hear?
The truth is not until the American public prepares itself for the truth and then demands honesty from the politicians will anything improve.
(1)www.Washington examiner.com/opinion/The-gathering-storm-on-social-security and-medicare-44970857.html
(2)www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm#top
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The truth is ...
Because I live in south Texas where there is no border fence I see first hand the mass migration of people crossing the Rio Grande River and entering the United States. A large percentage of these people cross over looking for a better standard of living for themselves and for their families that remain behind. A small number of these people come to America for criminal pursuits.
Americans are deeply divided by this issue and arguments from each position can become very heated during any discussion of illegal immigration. Pro-immigration and anti-immigration camps both can produce study after study and report after report that reinforces their positions.
Liberal pro-illegal immigrant people will cite studies that suggest illegal aliens pay about $25 billion per year in taxes (1) and are a source of labor that performs jobs that most Americans do not want. About 20% of illegal aliens work in the construction industry performing mostly manual labor. Another 17% work in the service sector such as the restaurant or hotel industry (2). The Liberal groups will claim that American business lures the immigrant to this country with the promise of a job that pays many more times what they can earn at home.
Conservative anti-illegal immigrant people will argue illegal aliens consume about $45 billion more tax dollars than they contribute (3). They will claim the illegal immigrant is performing work that over seven million Americans could be doing in this time of 10% unemployment (4). Anti-illegal immigrant people will justly claim illegal aliens are committing violent crimes that would not be committed if these people were not in the country. They also claim the educational and health care systems in many states are strained to the limit trying to cope with large numbers of illegals immigrants.
The truth is… both the anti and pro illegal immigrant camps present arguments that pale in comparison to the issue of national security. The porous condition along the southern border presents many dangers that most Americans recognize. Many Americans, however, are unaware that almost 50% of illegal aliens enter the United States legally (5). These people become illegal by overstaying their visas or by not amending their applications when their status changes such as from student to worker.
Three of the four terrorist piloting the planes that struck American targets on 9/11 were in the country illegally and 15 of the 19 hijackers should never had been issued visas (6). More than 1,000 illegal aliens cross the border with Mexico every day (7) and it would not be difficult for a terrorist to mingle with these people, enter our country and begin to plot a strike against our citizens.
Of greater concern is the suitcase size nuclear device or “dirty” bomb that could be smuggled across the border in place of one of the loads of drugs that enters our country every day.
The Democrat party has always favored the illegal immigrant or as they like to say the “migrant worker”. By allowing the illegal immigrant populations to swell the Democrats are creating a new block of voters that will be dependent for some time upon government services. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration but this opposition has largely been lip service that has no effect on the numbers of people entering our country or staying in country illegally. The Republican Party has recognized business’s desire for plentiful cheap labor.
The truth is… the fence along the border must be constructed, maintained and patrolled to ensure the safety of all Americans.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(2) www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(3)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(4)www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(5)http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61
(6)”outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann copyright 2007 Harpercollins pp.21-27
(7)www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
Americans are deeply divided by this issue and arguments from each position can become very heated during any discussion of illegal immigration. Pro-immigration and anti-immigration camps both can produce study after study and report after report that reinforces their positions.
Liberal pro-illegal immigrant people will cite studies that suggest illegal aliens pay about $25 billion per year in taxes (1) and are a source of labor that performs jobs that most Americans do not want. About 20% of illegal aliens work in the construction industry performing mostly manual labor. Another 17% work in the service sector such as the restaurant or hotel industry (2). The Liberal groups will claim that American business lures the immigrant to this country with the promise of a job that pays many more times what they can earn at home.
Conservative anti-illegal immigrant people will argue illegal aliens consume about $45 billion more tax dollars than they contribute (3). They will claim the illegal immigrant is performing work that over seven million Americans could be doing in this time of 10% unemployment (4). Anti-illegal immigrant people will justly claim illegal aliens are committing violent crimes that would not be committed if these people were not in the country. They also claim the educational and health care systems in many states are strained to the limit trying to cope with large numbers of illegals immigrants.
The truth is… both the anti and pro illegal immigrant camps present arguments that pale in comparison to the issue of national security. The porous condition along the southern border presents many dangers that most Americans recognize. Many Americans, however, are unaware that almost 50% of illegal aliens enter the United States legally (5). These people become illegal by overstaying their visas or by not amending their applications when their status changes such as from student to worker.
Three of the four terrorist piloting the planes that struck American targets on 9/11 were in the country illegally and 15 of the 19 hijackers should never had been issued visas (6). More than 1,000 illegal aliens cross the border with Mexico every day (7) and it would not be difficult for a terrorist to mingle with these people, enter our country and begin to plot a strike against our citizens.
Of greater concern is the suitcase size nuclear device or “dirty” bomb that could be smuggled across the border in place of one of the loads of drugs that enters our country every day.
The Democrat party has always favored the illegal immigrant or as they like to say the “migrant worker”. By allowing the illegal immigrant populations to swell the Democrats are creating a new block of voters that will be dependent for some time upon government services. Republicans have opposed illegal immigration but this opposition has largely been lip service that has no effect on the numbers of people entering our country or staying in country illegally. The Republican Party has recognized business’s desire for plentiful cheap labor.
The truth is… the fence along the border must be constructed, maintained and patrolled to ensure the safety of all Americans.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(2) www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(3)www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134
(4)www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/business/yourmoney/03view.html?
(5)http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61
(6)”outrage” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann copyright 2007 Harpercollins pp.21-27
(7)www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16859&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A tea party party?
I call myself a Tea Party activist and try to attend as many of the local gatherings that my busy schedule will allow. Most everyone I have met at these tea parties are serious people who believe in a government that is operated in a conservative manner. The question the Tea Party followers have always asked themselves is “How do we make an impact in elections?”
A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted December 4th and 5th had a surprising result. Although Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 39% in a generic poll, they would actually lose an election if there were a Tea Party candidate. The final tally was the Democrat receiving 36%, the Tea Party Candidate 23% and the Republican 18% with 22% undecided (1). The results of this poll have some people wondering if this is the time for a third political party.
The truth is a third political party may never win a Presidential election. The federal election laws and rules were created by Democrats and Republicans to benefit themselves and to exclude or limit third party challengers. An excellent example of this is Ross Perot who launched the Reform Party. Mr. Perot had the correct message and the money to self finance his campaign but he was limited by the election rules, debate organizers and ballot requirements.
Followers of the Tea Party movement must understand they do have a voice and now have sufficient numbers to affect national politics. What the movement followers lack is a national organization. The two national parties have had a century to grow, develop and create an organization with state, county and local offices in every region of the country. The Tea Party movement just does not have the time required to build an organization that will have the immediate impact they desire.
Some people believe there is no difference between the two major parties. There is a difference but it is not the elected officials representing the two parties, it is the party platforms. The Republican Party platform is really a conservative platform that most Tea Party followers agree with. The Republican Party’s shortcoming is not their platform, it is their elected membership. The Tea Party followers need to begin to infiltrate the Republican Party and begin to influence decisions, campaigns and platforms.
The 2010 elections are now only 11 months away. Tea Party followers should begin to get involved in local elections. They should seek out and endorse true conservative candidates. Whenever possible they should volunteer to help in campaigns for candidates that believe in a conservative government. If necessary they should encourage conservative people to running for office or even consider campaigning for themselves.
This is not the time for a third party but it is the time to demonstrate to Republicans they can no longer campaign as a conservative and then govern differently. When the time comes to step into the booth and pull the voting lever each of us will have to decide what type of government we want. We will have to choose someone to represent us. I know I will vote for the most conservative candidate even if it that person is a third party candidate. I will do this even if I know the result will be a Democrat victory. My vote is how I will move the Republican Party back to conservatism.
Carl Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com. Carl’s Book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?” is available at amazon.com.
(1) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot
A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted December 4th and 5th had a surprising result. Although Republicans beat Democrats 43% to 39% in a generic poll, they would actually lose an election if there were a Tea Party candidate. The final tally was the Democrat receiving 36%, the Tea Party Candidate 23% and the Republican 18% with 22% undecided (1). The results of this poll have some people wondering if this is the time for a third political party.
The truth is a third political party may never win a Presidential election. The federal election laws and rules were created by Democrats and Republicans to benefit themselves and to exclude or limit third party challengers. An excellent example of this is Ross Perot who launched the Reform Party. Mr. Perot had the correct message and the money to self finance his campaign but he was limited by the election rules, debate organizers and ballot requirements.
Followers of the Tea Party movement must understand they do have a voice and now have sufficient numbers to affect national politics. What the movement followers lack is a national organization. The two national parties have had a century to grow, develop and create an organization with state, county and local offices in every region of the country. The Tea Party movement just does not have the time required to build an organization that will have the immediate impact they desire.
Some people believe there is no difference between the two major parties. There is a difference but it is not the elected officials representing the two parties, it is the party platforms. The Republican Party platform is really a conservative platform that most Tea Party followers agree with. The Republican Party’s shortcoming is not their platform, it is their elected membership. The Tea Party followers need to begin to infiltrate the Republican Party and begin to influence decisions, campaigns and platforms.
The 2010 elections are now only 11 months away. Tea Party followers should begin to get involved in local elections. They should seek out and endorse true conservative candidates. Whenever possible they should volunteer to help in campaigns for candidates that believe in a conservative government. If necessary they should encourage conservative people to running for office or even consider campaigning for themselves.
This is not the time for a third party but it is the time to demonstrate to Republicans they can no longer campaign as a conservative and then govern differently. When the time comes to step into the booth and pull the voting lever each of us will have to decide what type of government we want. We will have to choose someone to represent us. I know I will vote for the most conservative candidate even if it that person is a third party candidate. I will do this even if I know the result will be a Democrat victory. My vote is how I will move the Republican Party back to conservatism.
Carl Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com. Carl’s Book “Letters to the editor: What is your government doing to you?” is available at amazon.com.
(1) www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Will I be able to keep my home?
The number of foreclosure signs in my neighborhood is a constant reminder of the suffering of a great number of families during the last two years. The President has stated our economy has turned the corner and is showing signs of improvement.
Because of this improvement in the economy some radio and television personalities recently have been talking about the prospects of extreme inflation in our country. Author Dick Morris has stated our economy may have to battle hyper-inflation. Mr. Morris compares our possible future to the country of Zimbabwe whose inflation is so extreme the government has to print one trillion dollar bills.
The housing bubble of 2008 was the single greatest factor causing the recent economic crisis our economy has struggled with. The national foreclosure rate on family homes averaged only three percent (1) in 2008 and 2009 but that was enough to cause the near collapse of some of the largest financial institutions in the country. In an effort to avoid the total collapse of our economy congress passed the $700 billion TARP bailout plan for the major banks. A $29 billion program was authorized to modify home mortgages to stem the flood of foreclosures (2).
One result of this governmental spending is the infusion of cash into our economy. In the past 18 months the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by 23% (3). I am not an economist but my common sense tells me an increase in the amount of cash circulating through the economy leads to inflation. Anyone old enough to remember the Carter Presidency will never forget the tough economic times our country struggled through.
During the last year of Carter’s term the increase of cash in the economy was only 8% (4) which was enough to create an inflation rate of 10% (5). Fed chairman Paul Volcker had to ratchet interest rates up to 20% (6) to lower inflation back to historic levels. What effect would an interest rate of 20% have on home owners with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage? Consider a family that has a $150,000 loan with an interest rate of 5%. That family’s monthly payment is around $800 per month. If their loan jumped to 20% interest their monthly payment would balloon to over $2,500.
I would assume that most Americans, like me, obtained the highest mortgage amount they qualified for. What will happen if their monthly payment triples? There is the real possibility the foreclosure rate will skyrocket and our financial institutions will be severely strained and could collapse.
Will our President then try to borrow more money from China and Japan to inject into the economy and delay the problem until he is out of office? Will he let the free market system settle the issue causing great pain for a large number of American families? Neither choice is particularly appealing but this President will always be remembered for the decision he makes.
I just hope that my yard does not become another in my neighborhood with a foreclosure sign in the yard.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. He can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1) articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/businessfi-mortgage6
(2) www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:43:./temp/~mdbs0GWrbG:.
(3) www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/hist/hrhist1.txt
(4) ibid
(5) www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentpage+2
Because of this improvement in the economy some radio and television personalities recently have been talking about the prospects of extreme inflation in our country. Author Dick Morris has stated our economy may have to battle hyper-inflation. Mr. Morris compares our possible future to the country of Zimbabwe whose inflation is so extreme the government has to print one trillion dollar bills.
The housing bubble of 2008 was the single greatest factor causing the recent economic crisis our economy has struggled with. The national foreclosure rate on family homes averaged only three percent (1) in 2008 and 2009 but that was enough to cause the near collapse of some of the largest financial institutions in the country. In an effort to avoid the total collapse of our economy congress passed the $700 billion TARP bailout plan for the major banks. A $29 billion program was authorized to modify home mortgages to stem the flood of foreclosures (2).
One result of this governmental spending is the infusion of cash into our economy. In the past 18 months the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by 23% (3). I am not an economist but my common sense tells me an increase in the amount of cash circulating through the economy leads to inflation. Anyone old enough to remember the Carter Presidency will never forget the tough economic times our country struggled through.
During the last year of Carter’s term the increase of cash in the economy was only 8% (4) which was enough to create an inflation rate of 10% (5). Fed chairman Paul Volcker had to ratchet interest rates up to 20% (6) to lower inflation back to historic levels. What effect would an interest rate of 20% have on home owners with an Adjustable Rate Mortgage? Consider a family that has a $150,000 loan with an interest rate of 5%. That family’s monthly payment is around $800 per month. If their loan jumped to 20% interest their monthly payment would balloon to over $2,500.
I would assume that most Americans, like me, obtained the highest mortgage amount they qualified for. What will happen if their monthly payment triples? There is the real possibility the foreclosure rate will skyrocket and our financial institutions will be severely strained and could collapse.
Will our President then try to borrow more money from China and Japan to inject into the economy and delay the problem until he is out of office? Will he let the free market system settle the issue causing great pain for a large number of American families? Neither choice is particularly appealing but this President will always be remembered for the decision he makes.
I just hope that my yard does not become another in my neighborhood with a foreclosure sign in the yard.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute TX, a suburb of Houston. He can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com OR conservativeCarl.blogspot.com.
(1) articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/businessfi-mortgage6
(2) www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:43:./temp/~mdbs0GWrbG:.
(3) www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/hist/hrhist1.txt
(4) ibid
(5) www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentpage+2
Sunday, December 13, 2009
MORE EARMARKS
The Senate has voted to pass the $1.1 trillion bollar operating budget for the first six months of the next fiscal year. President Obama will certainly sign this bill into law, thereby breaking a campaign promise yet again. While running against Sen. John McCain for the Presidency Obama said there would be no more pork in any bill he signed. The $787 billion economic stimulus bill he signed in February contained 9,oooo earmarks. This $1.1 trillion bill has over 5,000 earmarks in it. The really sad fact of all this is Republicans have almost as many earmarks in this bill as the liberal Democrats. Is there any confusion as to why an imaginary Tea Party Candidate polled higher than an imaginary Republican. The Tea Party movement has momentum and, more importantly, a true passion for change in Washington. Republican candidates MUST understand that in future campaigns they will have to pass a Tea Party litmus test to be elected. To underestimate the passion and the staying power of the Tea Partiers would be a mistake many politicians will not be able to recover from.
Scamming the sytem
I was shopping at my local extra-large national retail store (Walmart)this afternoon and witnessed something that took me by surprise. A woman with two teenagers was using three different food stamp cards to pay for two cartloads of groceries. The three cards combined were not enough to pay the bill in full so this lady pulled from her purse a roll of money that would make a professional Las Vegas gambler green with envy! After the woman left I asked the cashier how many people he saw with multiple food stamp cards. He told me “quite a few” people had more than one food stamp card and some bragged of learning how to “work the system”. I paid for my purchase and made my way to my vehicle. By coincidence the woman with the three cards was parked beside me and was loading groceries into her vehicle. I wish I had a really new Chevy Suburban like hers! How does this happen? Why is my tax money going to a person with a roll of money and a brand new Suburban? Should retailers be required to notify the state when this situation occurs? What a waste!!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Would I have supported slavery?
My friends have always said I am a politically conservative person although I consider myself more of a Libertarian. Being a good Libertarian, I do not approve of the proposed national health care reform plan that has passed the House of Representatives and is now on the floor of the Senate.
The heated debate in Washington concerning the proposed reform has turned ugly, if not downright stupid. Recently Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D)-NV proclaimed Republicans were behaving like the Senators that opposed the end of slavery in the 1800‘s by “stonewalling and dragging their feet” Is there any question why Mr. Reid is polling only 38% positively among his constituents? Its obvious Senator Reid needs some enlightenment concerning the party that drug its feet concerning civil rights.
In 1841 ex-President John Quincy Adams argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a group of slaves that were accused of murder when they broke free of their shackles and revolted aboard the slave ship Amistad. John Quincy Adams just happened to be a Republican that won his argument thereby winning the slaves’ freedom.
The United States Supreme court in the 1857 case of Dred Scott-v-Sanford found that blacks were considered to be property and not classified as citizens and therefore could not sue. Scott, who was a slave from Missouri, had argued he should be free because his master had moved him for a period of time to Illinois which was a free state. Republicans were outraged about the decision and complained loudly. Democrats on the other hand supported the decision.
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln penned the bold and famous Emancipation Proclamation (which was actually two executive orders) declaring freedom for all slaves in 1863. Abraham Lincoln was a great Republican.
In 1958 Democrat Governor Orval Faubus, declaring that “Blood will run in the streets”, resisted school desegregation in Arkansas by using the national guard to prevent black kids from entering Central High School. President Eisenhower, a Republican, ordered Federal troops into Little Rock to enforce desegregation.
In 1963 Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace, while personally blocking the doors and preventing two black students from registering at the University of Alabama, said “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever”.
In 1964 President Johnson signed into law the Civil rights Act of 1964. President Johnson encountered stiff opposition from Southern Democrats prior to signing the legislation.
Senator Reid must not be aware of the fact that since 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. In a stark and revealing contrast, Republicans have favored civil rights legislation in over 96% of the votes. (1)
If I were a Senator who opposed the proposed reform would Mr. Reid compare me to the Democrats that have traditionally opposed civil rights? I, like many of the Republicans in the Senate, believe I would be insulted by the suggestion.
(1) www.congresslink.org/print_basics__histmats_civilrights64text.htm
The heated debate in Washington concerning the proposed reform has turned ugly, if not downright stupid. Recently Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D)-NV proclaimed Republicans were behaving like the Senators that opposed the end of slavery in the 1800‘s by “stonewalling and dragging their feet” Is there any question why Mr. Reid is polling only 38% positively among his constituents? Its obvious Senator Reid needs some enlightenment concerning the party that drug its feet concerning civil rights.
In 1841 ex-President John Quincy Adams argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of a group of slaves that were accused of murder when they broke free of their shackles and revolted aboard the slave ship Amistad. John Quincy Adams just happened to be a Republican that won his argument thereby winning the slaves’ freedom.
The United States Supreme court in the 1857 case of Dred Scott-v-Sanford found that blacks were considered to be property and not classified as citizens and therefore could not sue. Scott, who was a slave from Missouri, had argued he should be free because his master had moved him for a period of time to Illinois which was a free state. Republicans were outraged about the decision and complained loudly. Democrats on the other hand supported the decision.
In 1862 Abraham Lincoln penned the bold and famous Emancipation Proclamation (which was actually two executive orders) declaring freedom for all slaves in 1863. Abraham Lincoln was a great Republican.
In 1958 Democrat Governor Orval Faubus, declaring that “Blood will run in the streets”, resisted school desegregation in Arkansas by using the national guard to prevent black kids from entering Central High School. President Eisenhower, a Republican, ordered Federal troops into Little Rock to enforce desegregation.
In 1963 Alabama Democrat Governor George Wallace, while personally blocking the doors and preventing two black students from registering at the University of Alabama, said “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever”.
In 1964 President Johnson signed into law the Civil rights Act of 1964. President Johnson encountered stiff opposition from Southern Democrats prior to signing the legislation.
Senator Reid must not be aware of the fact that since 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. In a stark and revealing contrast, Republicans have favored civil rights legislation in over 96% of the votes. (1)
If I were a Senator who opposed the proposed reform would Mr. Reid compare me to the Democrats that have traditionally opposed civil rights? I, like many of the Republicans in the Senate, believe I would be insulted by the suggestion.
(1) www.congresslink.org/print_basics__histmats_civilrights64text.htm
Monday, December 7, 2009
Conservative or nothing
In New York’s 23rd congressional district former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich endorsed The Republican candidate Deede Scozzafava for the seat vacated by John McHugh who has become Secretary of the Army. Many observers felt Ms. Scozzafava was far too liberal to be considered a true Republican. Ms. Scozzafava was a controversial candidate that supported gay marriage and abortion and also voted for tax increases and supported the Economic Stimulus Package. The result of her views was many conservatives chose not to support her. On October 16th however Speaker Gingrich offered his support. On Monday October 26th Mr. Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, appeared on Fox News’s “Your World” with Neil Cavuto.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C.
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exists between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election (this was the outcome of the election for New York’s 23rd District seat). This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls.
Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism practiced by their representatives is what is desired by the American patriot citizen.
Carl Goodson lives in the town of Clute, a suburb of Houston, TX. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
In the course of his appearance Mr. Tyler made several interesting comments. Mr. Tyler commended the participants of the several “Tea Parties” around the nation but noted the participants have no voice in the political process. Mr. Tyler noted the Republican Party needs to capture the energy and emotion of the Tea Parties but readily admits he did not know how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tyler also stated that as long as conservatives were voting for candidates other than Republicans the Democrats would remain in control of Congress. Mr. Tyler seemed to be suggesting that conservatives must vote for moderate Republicans to achieve change in Washington D.C.
Mr. Tyler unknowingly displayed the disconnect that exists between the Republican Party and conservative voters. There is a movement in America that is gaining in intensity and may soon become a ground swell of discontent among conservatives. Most conservative voters will not elect a liberal or even a moderate Republican. Mr. Tyler, like most Republicans I am afraid to say, has been unable to gauge the disgust many conservatives feel about the actions of the Republican Party during the past twenty years.
Mr. Tyler’s thinking is actually polar opposite of the conservative movement members thought process. The Republican Party thinks conservatives must vote for Republican candidates to achieve change. Conservatives believe Republicans must vote for conservative candidates to achieve this change. Many conservatives will vote for a third party candidate if the third party candidate is more conservative than the Republican candidate. True conservatives will do this even if the result is a Democrat winning the election (this was the outcome of the election for New York’s 23rd District seat). This is the only means the conservative voter has to convince Republican candidates they must be conservative or face rejection at the polls.
Some conservatives are willing to go so far as to lose all 535 seats of congress to the Democrats for two years if it will convince the Republicans true conservatism practiced by their representatives is what is desired by the American patriot citizen.
Carl Goodson lives in the town of Clute, a suburb of Houston, TX. Carl can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
To the editor,
A simple health care bill
I know today’s world is complex and can be confusing at times but I cannot understand why a health care “reform” bill must be 2,000 or more pages in length. It seems the older our country gets the longer winded our politicians become. The bills before the congress today would resemble hundreds of combined bills in years past.
In 2009 the $787 billion Stimulus package was enacted to create jobs and bolster the sagging economy. The total length of this legislation was only 407 pages. In 2008 the Bush administration proposed and received the $700 billion TARP program which was only 145 pages in length. It seems the further back in time one looks the fewer pages legislative bills needed to accomplish a purpose.
If I were to travel back in time I would see the Social Security Act of 1935, which is the largest government run program on the planet, was only 65 pages in length while the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in 1803 was only 10 pages long.
Some of the most important documents in our country’s history required very few pages to change world history. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation written in 1862 was only two pages in length. The most important document in American history, The Constitution, was penned onto only four sheets of paper.
The document that started our country down the path of self government, The Declaration of Independence, was a grand total of one page in length. It seems today’s political jargon requires one page to declare it’s purpose and recognize each person that wants their name glorified in the pages of history.
Without a doubt the shortest policy enacted was the Monroe Doctrine which garnered a measly three lines in James Monroe’s 1863 inaugural address. Before anyone wastes their time trying to correct me, I will acknowledge the Monroe Doctrine was not a legislative bill passed into law. However The Doctrine had a greater impact on our country’s future than 99% of the thousands of bills that have been debated in congress since President Monroe uttered his famous words.
I wonder if it would be possible to return to the time of simple ideas written in simple terms any American with a high school diploma could read and comprehend. This past weekend I set a personal goal to devise a health care program that was less than three lines in length when written. The task I was determined to complete turned out to be a relatively simple one. My great health care bill would read: All Americans are eligible for Medicare.
Surely this is an idea all Democrats can agree with. Tell any Democrat the government is not capable of competently running health care and they will invariably answer “Medicare”. They tell any one who will listen Medicare helps millions of people and these people are satisfied with their benefits.
Does implementing a 2,074 page bill demonstrate their lack of confidence in the Medicare program or does it signal the Democrats desire to control as much of America as they can legislate to themselves. Maybe the Democrats recognize Medicare is an unfunded obligation of $36 trillion over the next 75 years and will need drastic benefit reductions in the future.
The truth is opening Medicare to every one is no better an idea than the legislation being debated in Congress today. I do feel secure in the knowledge that I created a bill that is only six words in length and is just as viable as any our current officials have devised. Now, what time does the Alabama - Florida game begin?
Carl Goodson is a resident of Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
A simple health care bill
I know today’s world is complex and can be confusing at times but I cannot understand why a health care “reform” bill must be 2,000 or more pages in length. It seems the older our country gets the longer winded our politicians become. The bills before the congress today would resemble hundreds of combined bills in years past.
In 2009 the $787 billion Stimulus package was enacted to create jobs and bolster the sagging economy. The total length of this legislation was only 407 pages. In 2008 the Bush administration proposed and received the $700 billion TARP program which was only 145 pages in length. It seems the further back in time one looks the fewer pages legislative bills needed to accomplish a purpose.
If I were to travel back in time I would see the Social Security Act of 1935, which is the largest government run program on the planet, was only 65 pages in length while the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in 1803 was only 10 pages long.
Some of the most important documents in our country’s history required very few pages to change world history. Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation written in 1862 was only two pages in length. The most important document in American history, The Constitution, was penned onto only four sheets of paper.
The document that started our country down the path of self government, The Declaration of Independence, was a grand total of one page in length. It seems today’s political jargon requires one page to declare it’s purpose and recognize each person that wants their name glorified in the pages of history.
Without a doubt the shortest policy enacted was the Monroe Doctrine which garnered a measly three lines in James Monroe’s 1863 inaugural address. Before anyone wastes their time trying to correct me, I will acknowledge the Monroe Doctrine was not a legislative bill passed into law. However The Doctrine had a greater impact on our country’s future than 99% of the thousands of bills that have been debated in congress since President Monroe uttered his famous words.
I wonder if it would be possible to return to the time of simple ideas written in simple terms any American with a high school diploma could read and comprehend. This past weekend I set a personal goal to devise a health care program that was less than three lines in length when written. The task I was determined to complete turned out to be a relatively simple one. My great health care bill would read: All Americans are eligible for Medicare.
Surely this is an idea all Democrats can agree with. Tell any Democrat the government is not capable of competently running health care and they will invariably answer “Medicare”. They tell any one who will listen Medicare helps millions of people and these people are satisfied with their benefits.
Does implementing a 2,074 page bill demonstrate their lack of confidence in the Medicare program or does it signal the Democrats desire to control as much of America as they can legislate to themselves. Maybe the Democrats recognize Medicare is an unfunded obligation of $36 trillion over the next 75 years and will need drastic benefit reductions in the future.
The truth is opening Medicare to every one is no better an idea than the legislation being debated in Congress today. I do feel secure in the knowledge that I created a bill that is only six words in length and is just as viable as any our current officials have devised. Now, what time does the Alabama - Florida game begin?
Carl Goodson is a resident of Clute, TX a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
To the citizens of Connecticut,
Recently while watching Fox News I saw a news segment in which several people were protesting a local appearance being made by Senator Chris Dodd. I would like to commend these citizens for becoming involved in the electoral process, voicing their opinions and their opposition to Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign.
Many Americans not residing in-state have wondered how Mr. Dodd has continually been re-elected by the citizenry of Connecticut and has served 35 years in Washington D.C.
Mr. Dodd’s role in the mortgage meltdown that helped cause the current economic crisis is well documented and need not be re-told. Mr. Dodd’s actions concerning land and house acquisitions are not as well known as his involvement in the home mortgage crisis. Anyone that reads Dick Morris’ “Catastrophe” pp.155 - 186 will be surprised by the favors done for Senator Dodd by various people who then profited from decisions made by committees Mr. Dodd was a member of. Mr. Morris displays copies of the property deeds and transfers of ownership.
I realize Senator Dodd is not the only person in congress that engages in questionable actions but the movement to clean house and toss out the garbage must begin somewhere. Senator Dodd would be an excellent candidate to receive the message that Washington works for us, not us for them. As an average American that has grown weary of corruption and “politics as usual” in Washington, I thank you for your actions.
Carl Goodson
Clute, Texas
Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Recently while watching Fox News I saw a news segment in which several people were protesting a local appearance being made by Senator Chris Dodd. I would like to commend these citizens for becoming involved in the electoral process, voicing their opinions and their opposition to Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign.
Many Americans not residing in-state have wondered how Mr. Dodd has continually been re-elected by the citizenry of Connecticut and has served 35 years in Washington D.C.
Mr. Dodd’s role in the mortgage meltdown that helped cause the current economic crisis is well documented and need not be re-told. Mr. Dodd’s actions concerning land and house acquisitions are not as well known as his involvement in the home mortgage crisis. Anyone that reads Dick Morris’ “Catastrophe” pp.155 - 186 will be surprised by the favors done for Senator Dodd by various people who then profited from decisions made by committees Mr. Dodd was a member of. Mr. Morris displays copies of the property deeds and transfers of ownership.
I realize Senator Dodd is not the only person in congress that engages in questionable actions but the movement to clean house and toss out the garbage must begin somewhere. Senator Dodd would be an excellent candidate to receive the message that Washington works for us, not us for them. As an average American that has grown weary of corruption and “politics as usual” in Washington, I thank you for your actions.
Carl Goodson
Clute, Texas
Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
To the editor,
Goodbye Lou,
On November 11 Lou Dobbs, a CNN anchor for 30 years, announced his immediate retirement from the network. Mr. Dobbs is an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration. Lou’s position concerning the issue of illegal immigration has drawn the ire of many people. One of Lou’s harshest critics is Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Corporation.
Geraldo habitually complains that Lou Dobbs slanders Latinos on a regular basis. Geraldo says Mr. Dobbs is a racist that resurrected his career on the backs of immigrants and is single-handedly responsible for the prejudice towards Latinos that supposedly exist within the United States.
What Geraldo doesn’t mention is his feelings about a government that practices true prejudice against Latinos. Mr. Rivera does not speak of the government that deports over 90% of the illegal aliens that cross the southern border every year. Geraldo remains silent when that government sentences illegal aliens to 10 year prison terms for entering the country illegally a second time.
How does Mr. Rivera feel about the government that sentences immigrants to six years imprisonment for overstaying a legal visa or imprisons a natural citizen for five years for marrying an illegal alien for the purposes of keeping that alien in the country?
I doubt Geraldo will ever speak of the stringent immigration laws of Mexico. Instead he will spend his time and efforts trying to discredit a news personality that reports the true facts about illegal immigrants and the negative impact they are having on the economic and social structure of our country.
Mr. Dobbs is correct when he states illegal aliens send almost $20 billion to Mexico every year. Money sent by illegal aliens in the United States to family members in Mexico is that countries 2nd largest source of income, second only to the exporting of oil which generates $24 billion per year.
A 2005 report by Bear Stearns proves Mr. Dobbs correct when he states the true estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be close to 20 million. The cost of educating, incarcerating and caring for these aliens is projected to be almost $62 billion in 2010 and increases to $150 billion by 2020.
Mr. Dobbs was a popular news anchor but there is no way he alone could be responsible for the attitudes of the majority of the American public. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll demonstrates 74% of Americans believe the U. S. Government is not doing enough to control the southern border while 63% believe securing the border is more important than legalizing undocumented workers. 67% of Americans believe law enforcement should conduct raids in places illegal immigrants are known to gather.
Mr. Rivera was involved in a much publicized heated exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”. At one point during the exchange Geraldo accused people like Lou Dobbs of wanting to take immigrants “out back and shoot them”. Yet it was Lou Dobbs and his family that was fired upon, I do not believe Lou Dobbs ever shot at an illegal alien. I have never heard Mr. Dobbs differentiate between Latinos or the 1.5 million non-Hispanic people that are in the United States illegally. Mr. Rivera’s own biases and prejudices are on display when he assumes Lou Dobbs speaks only of Latinos.
I say I will miss Lou Dobbs and his nightly broadcast. I cannot say the same will be true when Geraldo fades from everyone’s memory.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Goodbye Lou,
On November 11 Lou Dobbs, a CNN anchor for 30 years, announced his immediate retirement from the network. Mr. Dobbs is an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration. Lou’s position concerning the issue of illegal immigration has drawn the ire of many people. One of Lou’s harshest critics is Geraldo Rivera of Fox News Corporation.
Geraldo habitually complains that Lou Dobbs slanders Latinos on a regular basis. Geraldo says Mr. Dobbs is a racist that resurrected his career on the backs of immigrants and is single-handedly responsible for the prejudice towards Latinos that supposedly exist within the United States.
What Geraldo doesn’t mention is his feelings about a government that practices true prejudice against Latinos. Mr. Rivera does not speak of the government that deports over 90% of the illegal aliens that cross the southern border every year. Geraldo remains silent when that government sentences illegal aliens to 10 year prison terms for entering the country illegally a second time.
How does Mr. Rivera feel about the government that sentences immigrants to six years imprisonment for overstaying a legal visa or imprisons a natural citizen for five years for marrying an illegal alien for the purposes of keeping that alien in the country?
I doubt Geraldo will ever speak of the stringent immigration laws of Mexico. Instead he will spend his time and efforts trying to discredit a news personality that reports the true facts about illegal immigrants and the negative impact they are having on the economic and social structure of our country.
Mr. Dobbs is correct when he states illegal aliens send almost $20 billion to Mexico every year. Money sent by illegal aliens in the United States to family members in Mexico is that countries 2nd largest source of income, second only to the exporting of oil which generates $24 billion per year.
A 2005 report by Bear Stearns proves Mr. Dobbs correct when he states the true estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the United States to be close to 20 million. The cost of educating, incarcerating and caring for these aliens is projected to be almost $62 billion in 2010 and increases to $150 billion by 2020.
Mr. Dobbs was a popular news anchor but there is no way he alone could be responsible for the attitudes of the majority of the American public. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll demonstrates 74% of Americans believe the U. S. Government is not doing enough to control the southern border while 63% believe securing the border is more important than legalizing undocumented workers. 67% of Americans believe law enforcement should conduct raids in places illegal immigrants are known to gather.
Mr. Rivera was involved in a much publicized heated exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor”. At one point during the exchange Geraldo accused people like Lou Dobbs of wanting to take immigrants “out back and shoot them”. Yet it was Lou Dobbs and his family that was fired upon, I do not believe Lou Dobbs ever shot at an illegal alien. I have never heard Mr. Dobbs differentiate between Latinos or the 1.5 million non-Hispanic people that are in the United States illegally. Mr. Rivera’s own biases and prejudices are on display when he assumes Lou Dobbs speaks only of Latinos.
I say I will miss Lou Dobbs and his nightly broadcast. I cannot say the same will be true when Geraldo fades from everyone’s memory.
Carl Goodson lives in Clute, TX, a suburb of Houston. Mr. Goodson can be contacted at conservativeCarl@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
