It is Halloween October 31, 2008 in Lexington County, South Carolina and three men have just purchased a Mazda B-2000 pick up truck. The men are Juan Carrillo, Martin Teran and Josue Benitez and they are all members of the MS-13 gang and have traveled to South Carolina from Houston Texas on orders from Teran (1).
Three days later on November 2, 2008 51 year old Vindell Ramos is at home working on his car. Carrillo, Teran and Benitez approach Ramos, shoot him in the head and chest and flee in the Mazda B-2000. Juan Carrillo travels to Mexico while Teran and Benitez go home to Houston.
Fast forward eight months to June 23, 2009 in Southwest Houston. Juan Carrillo’s brother Roberto Carrillo along with Andres Nava-Maldonado, Xiomora Mendez-Rosales and a juvenile are in a Walgreens pharmacy parking lot. They are to meet with a man that has promised to sell them $30,000 worth of stolen Televisions for $6,500 (2).
Roberto Carrillo though has other plans. After paying the man for the stolen televisions Carrillo follows him to the front of the loaded rental truck, draws a gun and shoots the man in the back. As the man falls to the ground he manages to draw his own gun and shoot Carrillo in the chest. Carrillo makes his way to the rear of the rental truck and falls to the ground.
Houston Police Department officer Ruben Lopez arrives and approaches Carrillo who, upon seeing Lopez, twice fires at him. Officer Lopez returns fire and fatally wounds Carrillo (3). The man first shot by Carrillo is transported to Ben Taub hospital where he dies shortly after arrival. The slain man is Undercover Houston Police Department Officer Henry Canales.
The resulting investigation reveals that Juan Carrillo, Roberto Carrillo, Andres Nava-Maldonado and Xiomora Mendez-Rosales are in the country illegally. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials state that between 1990 and 1992 Nava-Maldonado was arrested in California for attempted murder, robbery, being under the influence of drugs, grand theft, assault and exhibiting a firearm (4). Yet 16 years later he is still leading a life of crime in Houston while being in the country illegally.
The Houston Police Department released information that determined Roberto Carrillo had been stopped and ticketed four times in the previous seven years. Houston Police Department policy does not allow an officer to inquire about a person’s citizenship or to fingerprint them if they have some form of identification on them. Each time Carrillo was stopped he had identification and on one occasion he had two drivers Licenses (5). If Carrillo had been fingerprinted there is the possibility that he would have been deported long before the events of June 23, 2009.
Officer Canales left behind a wife, son Henry Jr. age 15 and 17 year old daughter Stephanie. Our elected officials need to explain to the Canales family why illegal aliens should be allowed to roam our country, murder some of our finest and then have their fellow illegal aliens receive amnesty from a non-caring federal government. Someone should make Jerry Rivers (Geraldo Rivera) look the Canales family in the eye and explain how illegal aliens benefit our society.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
(1) www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0812/081216columbia.htm
(2) www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/houston/stories/khou090624_jj_cop-shooting-suspect-family-speaks-o.326de99.html
(3) http://blogs.chron.com/newswatch/2009/06/how_it_happened_killing_of_hou.html
(4) www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6498386.html
(5) Ibid
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What is a Liberal to do?
Poor Eugene Robinson; pity for Rachel “Madcow” Maddow; sorrow for Keith “Egghead” Olbermann! Lately these misguided people have lamented about the sad state the Democrat party finds itself adjusting to after Scott Brown’s upset of Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate election.
Eugene Robinson won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles he penned about the 2008 presidential election. Although Mr. Robinson is an educated and talented man he recently stated on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that he was “mystified by all the Democrats running around in sheer panic.” Mr. Robinson went on to state “In any other universe the Democrat majority would be considered a good situation and one would think you should proceed with the legislation any way you can.”
On her nightly talk show Rachel Maddow commented “What are you going to do, campaign and win the election on health care reform, spend a year getting legislation passed in the House and Senate and be closer than ever before and then give up on it? Get real”.
During one of the recent episodes of his nightly show Keith Olbermann, referring to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, keenly observed “371 days after the President’s inauguration we still do not have health care. Why not? 20 Republicans were not elected the other night, one was”.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead seemingly are failing to grasp the significance of Republican Senator Brown’s victory in a state that history proves is one of the most liberal. The majority of Massachusetts voters are registered as “un-enrolled” which most people in other states would recognize as “Independent”.
In the 2008 presidential election then Senator Obama received 52% of the independent vote nationwide and 57% in Massachusetts (1). On inauguration day in 2009 President Obama’s approval rating was 68% but according to the most recent polling data has fallen to 48%, a drop of 20 points (2). Most analysts attribute this downward spiral of the President’s approval rating to the mass shifting of the Independent voter’s preference to the Republican Party. The fact that Conservative Republican Senator Brown captured 65% of the un-enrolled vote in Massachusetts is powerful evidence of this shift (3).
Most career politicians are very adept at reading the “tea leaves” when it means their career may be endangered. These Democrats realize the nation is angry and that anger will be directed at the party in the position of majority power. These Democrat representatives will not lock arms and walk off the cliff for a man that may not be able to win his own next election and is in the process of alienating millions of centrist voters.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead will never understand that these political leaders will put their careers ahead of any left wing liberal agenda. By taking this position the congressional politicians are in effect making Obama a first term, three year “Lame Duck” President.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, Texas
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
(2) www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls
(3) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
Eugene Robinson won the Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles he penned about the 2008 presidential election. Although Mr. Robinson is an educated and talented man he recently stated on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that he was “mystified by all the Democrats running around in sheer panic.” Mr. Robinson went on to state “In any other universe the Democrat majority would be considered a good situation and one would think you should proceed with the legislation any way you can.”
On her nightly talk show Rachel Maddow commented “What are you going to do, campaign and win the election on health care reform, spend a year getting legislation passed in the House and Senate and be closer than ever before and then give up on it? Get real”.
During one of the recent episodes of his nightly show Keith Olbermann, referring to Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, keenly observed “371 days after the President’s inauguration we still do not have health care. Why not? 20 Republicans were not elected the other night, one was”.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead seemingly are failing to grasp the significance of Republican Senator Brown’s victory in a state that history proves is one of the most liberal. The majority of Massachusetts voters are registered as “un-enrolled” which most people in other states would recognize as “Independent”.
In the 2008 presidential election then Senator Obama received 52% of the independent vote nationwide and 57% in Massachusetts (1). On inauguration day in 2009 President Obama’s approval rating was 68% but according to the most recent polling data has fallen to 48%, a drop of 20 points (2). Most analysts attribute this downward spiral of the President’s approval rating to the mass shifting of the Independent voter’s preference to the Republican Party. The fact that Conservative Republican Senator Brown captured 65% of the un-enrolled vote in Massachusetts is powerful evidence of this shift (3).
Most career politicians are very adept at reading the “tea leaves” when it means their career may be endangered. These Democrats realize the nation is angry and that anger will be directed at the party in the position of majority power. These Democrat representatives will not lock arms and walk off the cliff for a man that may not be able to win his own next election and is in the process of alienating millions of centrist voters.
Mr. Robinson, Madcow and Egghead will never understand that these political leaders will put their careers ahead of any left wing liberal agenda. By taking this position the congressional politicians are in effect making Obama a first term, three year “Lame Duck” President.
Carl D. Goodson
Clute, Texas
www.carldgoodson.com
www.conservativecarl.blogspot.com
(1) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
(2) www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls
(3) www.csmonitor.com/…/Scott-Brown-s-Massachusetts-win-fueled-by-independent-voters
Monday, January 25, 2010
The cost of Illegal Immigrant Health Care
Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) became famous when he shouted the infamous “You lie” at President Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress to promote his national health care bill. Representative Wilson was upset because he knows that illegal aliens will be allowed to enroll in any national health care plan. Illegal aliens already receive federally funded health care at clinics such as the one operated by nurse practitioner Tiffany Revels in Benson, North Carolina (1).
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that any group of people residing in the United States could not be excluded from any benefit that everyone else residing in the country receives. The ruling came in the case of Plyler v Doe (1982) concerning the children of illegal immigrants having access to a free public education (2). Representative Wilson is aware of this ruling as are all policy makers and he knows illegal alien advocacy groups will use it as precedence to accomplish health care for anyone crafty enough to break our laws and enter America illegally.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling can be seen in any hospital emergency room in metropolitan areas within the Border States. Any person that visits the E. R. on a weekend will see a room packed with people, many of whom have been waiting all week, that have a difficult time communicating and completing paperwork because it is in English. These people come on the weekend because they know all other Physician’s offices are closed so they cannot be told to go see their regular doctor.
The real question is how much does health care for illegal aliens cost the American Taxpayer. According to the Center for Immigration Studies there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal aliens in the United States and it cost $4.3 billion to treat these people primarily in emergency rooms. The national healthcare plan currently under consideration in congress would raise the cost of treating illegal aliens to over $30 billion (3).
In Houston, Texas the cost of treating and caring for illegal aliens is between $123 million and $145 million per year. In 2005 the federal government contributed just $100 million for the entire state; leaving local taxpayers to pay the remaining cost (4).
There are costs associated with treating illegal aliens that are not calculated in dollars. In California alone 84 hospitals are closing forever due to government mandates for treating illegal aliens (4). Hospital closures degrade the health care services provided to everyone including natural citizens that live in the area and hundreds of people lose their job with each closure.
If the proposed health care legislation is enacted and health care is provided as a “right” to every U. S. citizen, the court system will ensure it is provided to illegal aliens also. A mandate that forces the United States citizens to pay for the health care of people from all over the world is the true cost of health care.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_n.htm
(2) http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/illegal-healthcare-N.htm
(3) http://cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200
(4) www.portfolio.com/industry-nres/health-care/2009/11/20/illegal-immigrants-cost-local-hospitals-while-feds-avoid-issue/
(5) Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ. “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, spring 2005
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that any group of people residing in the United States could not be excluded from any benefit that everyone else residing in the country receives. The ruling came in the case of Plyler v Doe (1982) concerning the children of illegal immigrants having access to a free public education (2). Representative Wilson is aware of this ruling as are all policy makers and he knows illegal alien advocacy groups will use it as precedence to accomplish health care for anyone crafty enough to break our laws and enter America illegally.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling can be seen in any hospital emergency room in metropolitan areas within the Border States. Any person that visits the E. R. on a weekend will see a room packed with people, many of whom have been waiting all week, that have a difficult time communicating and completing paperwork because it is in English. These people come on the weekend because they know all other Physician’s offices are closed so they cannot be told to go see their regular doctor.
The real question is how much does health care for illegal aliens cost the American Taxpayer. According to the Center for Immigration Studies there are 6.6 million uninsured illegal aliens in the United States and it cost $4.3 billion to treat these people primarily in emergency rooms. The national healthcare plan currently under consideration in congress would raise the cost of treating illegal aliens to over $30 billion (3).
In Houston, Texas the cost of treating and caring for illegal aliens is between $123 million and $145 million per year. In 2005 the federal government contributed just $100 million for the entire state; leaving local taxpayers to pay the remaining cost (4).
There are costs associated with treating illegal aliens that are not calculated in dollars. In California alone 84 hospitals are closing forever due to government mandates for treating illegal aliens (4). Hospital closures degrade the health care services provided to everyone including natural citizens that live in the area and hundreds of people lose their job with each closure.
If the proposed health care legislation is enacted and health care is provided as a “right” to every U. S. citizen, the court system will ensure it is provided to illegal aliens also. A mandate that forces the United States citizens to pay for the health care of people from all over the world is the true cost of health care.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, TX
(1) www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_n.htm
(2) http://willnevergiveup.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/illegal-healthcare-N.htm
(3) http://cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200
(4) www.portfolio.com/industry-nres/health-care/2009/11/20/illegal-immigrants-cost-local-hospitals-while-feds-avoid-issue/
(5) Madeleine Peiner Cosman, Ph.D., ESQ. “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, spring 2005
Monday, January 18, 2010
MSNBC or is it MSLSD
I was watching The Joe Scarborough show on MSNBC this Monday morning. The round table discussion worked its way to the subject of the Massachusetts Senate race between Martha Coakely and Scott Brown. The previous guest happened to be Chris Matthews, yes the same Chris Matthews that has a tingly feeling up his leg whenever our Dear Leader speaks. Mr. Tingly Feeling reported that he had just spoken to a pollster in Massachusetts who had worked late into the night conducting and analyzing interviews of citizens. Mr. Tingly Feeling was sad because he had to report that Scott Brown had increased his lead in the race and it appeared he was going to win by a significant margin.
There was a guest contributor named Mike Barnicle who was supposedly imparting definitive, authoritative information. In a demonstration of his infinite wisdom Barnicle had the totally asinine gall to state “This election is not a reflection of the Tea Party Movement. This election is a reflection of the anger of the population as a whole with the establishment.” What an idiot. Evidently any knowledge Barnacle Mike has is like a BB rolling around in a metal trash can---it makes a lot of noise but there is no substance to it. Obviously Barnacle Mike does not understand what the Tea Party movement is all about.
Barnacle Mike, like so many Liberals, does not understand Tea Partiers are for a smaller government. We are tired of government intrusion into our personal lives. We are tired of people who bankrupt our nation in an effort to expand their political power. We are tired of politicians that will not tell the American public the truth about the true states of our nation’s treasury.
No more bribes to individual politicians to “buy” their support. No more backroom deals swapping votes with each other to get their agenda passed. If a bill or project does not stand on its own merit the country does not need it--let it fail. End the assault on religion; part of freedom of religion is the right to not practice religion- not to abolish it.
We do not want politicians that go to Washington to enrich their own pockets or acquire power at the expense of our great country and the citizens that sent them there. We want leaders, not politicians that go to serve their country, do their job and go home proud of what they have accomplished. It seems as if the people we have in Washington now are only proud of how well they lie, scam and cheat there way to fortune.
As long as these people keep their heads buried in the sand, or somewhere else that is dark, they will not understand until the next election when they will be exposed to the bright light of true reform. Send them packing and let them moan and groan as we take back this nation and right the wrong course we have let these idiots set us on.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, Texas
There was a guest contributor named Mike Barnicle who was supposedly imparting definitive, authoritative information. In a demonstration of his infinite wisdom Barnicle had the totally asinine gall to state “This election is not a reflection of the Tea Party Movement. This election is a reflection of the anger of the population as a whole with the establishment.” What an idiot. Evidently any knowledge Barnacle Mike has is like a BB rolling around in a metal trash can---it makes a lot of noise but there is no substance to it. Obviously Barnacle Mike does not understand what the Tea Party movement is all about.
Barnacle Mike, like so many Liberals, does not understand Tea Partiers are for a smaller government. We are tired of government intrusion into our personal lives. We are tired of people who bankrupt our nation in an effort to expand their political power. We are tired of politicians that will not tell the American public the truth about the true states of our nation’s treasury.
No more bribes to individual politicians to “buy” their support. No more backroom deals swapping votes with each other to get their agenda passed. If a bill or project does not stand on its own merit the country does not need it--let it fail. End the assault on religion; part of freedom of religion is the right to not practice religion- not to abolish it.
We do not want politicians that go to Washington to enrich their own pockets or acquire power at the expense of our great country and the citizens that sent them there. We want leaders, not politicians that go to serve their country, do their job and go home proud of what they have accomplished. It seems as if the people we have in Washington now are only proud of how well they lie, scam and cheat there way to fortune.
As long as these people keep their heads buried in the sand, or somewhere else that is dark, they will not understand until the next election when they will be exposed to the bright light of true reform. Send them packing and let them moan and groan as we take back this nation and right the wrong course we have let these idiots set us on.
Carl D. Goodson
www.carldgoodson.com
Clute, Texas
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Private Meetings?
Last Wednesday Fox News host Bill Hemmer was interviewing a Democrat congressman. Hemmer was asking the congressman if he considered the closed door conference committee meeting about national health care breaking Obama's pledge to have the meetings open. Fox News played eight seperate videos of Obama saying C-SPAN would cover any debate on pending legislation. The congressman answered that Obama did not break his promise and the negotiations about the health care plan were the most open debates he had witnessed since coming to Washington.Hemmer then told him many people thought that taking the meetings behind closed doors to finish it was breaking that promise. The congressman replied that most all legislation was finished behind closed doors because there had to be "private" discussions. The congressman was speaking politicalese for secret negotiations, deal making and bribing that is necessary to get bills done. The thing the congressman and his sidekicks fail to understand is this is exactly the thing Americans have grown weary of. If a bill can only garner support through deal making and bribery the American people think the bill is not worth passing. Legislation is either good enough to stand on it's own or it is not. If it is not it should be scrapped and forgotten! The mid term elections are only 10 months away and I believe it is time to send Washington a message. Americans should scrutinize the way their representative conducts business. If they are not above board and out in the open or if it does not benefit the country as a whole it is time to be rid of them. VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Cost of Illegals
Illegal aliens cost our country billions of dollars every year. After accounting for any tax revenues generated by illegal aliens they are costing American taxpayers approximately $45 billion per year. The latest information available from the Federation of American Immigration Reform is from the year 2003. The education of children of illegals cost taxpayers $7.7 billion per year. Housing, food stamps and Social Security benefits cost $6.15 billion. medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) cost another $3.7 billion. The criminal justice system and corrections cost an additional $7.75 billion. Local governments absorb another $5 billion in expenses while various other federal programs cost more than $9 billion. According to a Rasmussen poll taken in June 2009, 80% of Americans oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens. 68% believe that employers who hire illegals should be punished while 79% say the military should be deployed along the border for security. A result of the polling the Obama administration will not like is 67% of Americans think police should conduct surprise raids in places immigrants are known to gather. Why would Obama not like this? It is really a simple question to answer. The more people that rely on the government for their needs tend to vote for the party that provides the freebies.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
loss of some freedom?
President Obama wants everyone in the United States to be covered by some form of health insurance, be it privately provided ( individual or employer) or single payer ( government provided). While this is an indication of his caring for fellow human beings, it is a misguided idea that will result in a financial hardship unlike any other in the history of the United States. It is estimated there are 42 million people in the United States that are un-insured. The President would like these people to be insured and have the federal government pay the bill. What is not being said though, is 12 million of these people are in the United States illegally. Another 10 to 12 million are college age people that could buy private insurance for around $200 per month but do not because they are young and have the “ I am invincible” attitude or simply believe that nothing bad can happen to them, that it is always “the other guy” that falls ill. Not only will this policy saddle Americans with astronomically high taxes, it is a policy that blurs the line between rights and responsibilities. True freedom is a balance between rights and responsibilities. Everyone is free (has the right) to engage in any activity that does not hurt someone else or infringe upon that other persons rights. This freedom, however, has responsibilities attached. In other words, you are responsible for your own actions. Placing the consequences of one persons actions on a different person is a loss of freedom for the person on whom the consequences is placed. Asking taxpayers that try to live a healthy lifestyle to pay medical bills of people that do not try to be healthy is Socialism. Asking the federal government (taxpayers) to pay for the bad decisions and poor lifestyles of a few is unfair to the many who make wise decisions.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Should illegal aliens choose our President?
Along with the New Year comes the once per decade United States census. The more recent censuses have created heated pre-census debates and this year is no different. Senator David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, introduced legislation that would require persons not in the country legally to be skipped over in the counting of our population.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted. The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas population total (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is flush with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this outcome the American public desires or is this the outcome the liberal politician desires?
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
ConservativeCarl.blogspot.com
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allowed the bill to come to the floor of the Senate but did not allow any debate to take place. The Vitter amendment was defeated 60 to 39 on a vote that was strictly along party lines. The only Senator not voting was the too liberal Republican John McCain of Arizona.
In 1790 the first Census Act stated that “only bona fide members of a state, subject to all the requisitions of its laws, and entitled to all the privileges which they confer” shall be counted. The first census actually asked individuals their place of birth to determine if they were a lawful citizen that should be counted. The decision to count or not count illegal aliens is a decision that will have consequences for the next decade. Yet many Americans do not realize the ramifications of an inaccurate count of lawful citizens.
Each year there is approximately $400 billion in discretionary funds in the Federal budget. Using data furnished by the census bureau the federal government disperses these funds based on an areas population total (2). The more populated an area is the more federal dollars that area receives for social services such as unemployment benefits. Is it really fair that an area flush with illegal aliens receive more Federal dollars than an area that is flush with American citizens?
If illegal aliens are counted in the 2010 census nine states, ( Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Oregon), will each lose one representative in the House of Representatives. Four states (California, Texas, Illinois and New York) will gain representatives (3). This means that illegal aliens will have a voice in Congress and influence American policy.
The Electoral College consists of voters from each state called Electors. Each state sends as many Electors to the Electoral College as they have Senators and Representatives. For example if a state has two Senators and 46 Representatives they would send 48 electors to the electoral college.. If illegal aliens are counted in the census and the result is some states losing representatives while others gain representatives, the Electoral College will not reflect the true counting of legal citizens. An example of this is the 2004 Presidential election. Because Illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 census John Kerry received five electoral votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush (4). States with a high population of illegal aliens will have more representation than states with a low population of illegals even if the population of legitimate citizens is the same. Therefore it could be argued that illegal aliens could influence the outcome of an American presidential election. Is this outcome the American public desires or is this the outcome the liberal politician desires?
Americans should petition Senator Vitter to reintroduce his legislation to the Senate and then contact their Senator and ask them to vote for this bill.
Carl D. Goodson
ConservativeCarl.blogspot.com
(1)http://onlinewsj.com/article/SB10001424042970204908604574332950796281832.html
(2) http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21803&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
(3) http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/apportion.pdf?docID=2061
(4) Ibid.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Tea Party Strikers?
There is a message floating around the internet about an upcoming strike by Tea Party members on January 20; the anniversary of the inauguration of Barak Obama. This is without a doubt the most incorrect thing to do. The Tea Party is not about disruption of business or civil disobedience. Members have demonstrated at town hall meetings and in peaceable gatherings all across this great country and have done so peacebly and with the utmost respect to all concerned.
The liberal mainstream media would not pass the opportunity to mis-characterize any national strike as Tea Partiers "out of control" and label any striker as part of an angry white mob. Chris Matthews on MSNBC already dismisses the diversity of the tea party movement by stating the protest are conducted by "Mono-chromatic" mobs. Do not give this man or any of his colleagues the opportunity to degrade a true national movement of concerned citizens.
Tea Partiers should continue to assemble peacefully, contact their representatives and become engaged in national and local issues and elections. Campaign and support candidates that reflect conservative values. The tea party movement, although gaining momentum, is still in it's infancy. A strike would send the message the tea partiers are really just a crowd of fringe right wing extremists!
The liberal mainstream media would not pass the opportunity to mis-characterize any national strike as Tea Partiers "out of control" and label any striker as part of an angry white mob. Chris Matthews on MSNBC already dismisses the diversity of the tea party movement by stating the protest are conducted by "Mono-chromatic" mobs. Do not give this man or any of his colleagues the opportunity to degrade a true national movement of concerned citizens.
Tea Partiers should continue to assemble peacefully, contact their representatives and become engaged in national and local issues and elections. Campaign and support candidates that reflect conservative values. The tea party movement, although gaining momentum, is still in it's infancy. A strike would send the message the tea partiers are really just a crowd of fringe right wing extremists!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
