Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

85309Devvy Kidd -- A Bill: Stop all Public Welfare in Any Form for Illegal Aliens

Expand Messages
  • Sardar
    Sep 4, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      A BILL: STOP ALL PUBLIC WELFARE IN ANY FORM FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS




      By: Devvy
      August 24, 2014
      NewsWithViews.com

      Our Federal Wallet Stretched To Limit By Illegal Aliens Getting Welfare'
      "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who
      are here illegally." - Senator Dirty Harry Reid, Democratic/Communist Party
      USA. He also said that the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the
      expense of honest, working citizens. August 5, 1993, Dirty Harry's office
      issued the following:

      "In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens,
      Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Today introduced the first and only comprehensive
      immigration reform bill in Congress. Currently, an alien living illegally in
      the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare,
      free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts,
      including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep
      violent criminals out of the country.....

      "Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous
      burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The
      Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up
      enforcement. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens
      getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits often without
      paying any taxes.”

      “Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost
      Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to
      entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse,
      Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here
      illegally.”

      His statements were to announce a bill he introduced back then titled the
      Immigration Stabilization Act [S.1351]. I'm betting it was not written by
      Dirty Harry, but by lawyers who know what they're doing and the sure to come
      legal challenges. It covers the whole gambit of turning off the trillions
      spent over the past 28 years since Reagan sold us out. One section I want to
      highlight: TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP

      SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

      "In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of
      Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has
      determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of
      enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United
      States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and
      which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of
      his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon
      application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be
      considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and
      not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of
      section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United
      States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the
      United States at the moment of birth."

      Dirty Harry was speaking about the legal fiction called 'anchor babies'
      something I have been very vocal about: States Must Fight Legal Fiction
      Called Anchor Babies. Judge Jeanine ‘Illegally Entering U.S. Is Not a Right
      to Citizenship' - She is on point and says it like it is: "I draw but one
      conclusion: Barack Obama is intentionally using the immigration crisis as an
      excuse to change the demographics and ultimately the electorate of this
      nation." Illegals tell filmmakers: we were told to vote democrat, or be
      deported: "Livingston wrote that, prior to the 2012 presidential election,
      “the illegals were handed voter registrations and told they would be sent to
      states with NO ID check for voting.”

      Of course, that puffed up peacock has changed his tune: Harry Reid: The
      Border is Secure, Now We Need Illegal Alien Amnesty - July 15, 2014: "Ladies
      and gentlemen, an idiot."

      A friend recently contacted me about the issue of the massive invasion on
      our border here in Texas. I reinforced to him this all started when
      "conservative", former Democrat, Ronald Reagan, signed the "immigration
      reform bill to stop illegals once and for all " into law in 1986. With
      approximately 2.1 million liars, cheats and thieves, illegals, in our
      country at that time, it didn't take long for the invasion to go into high
      gear once illegals found out they could steal from you to fund their life
      styles. Reagan opened the flood gates and here we are today with 25-30
      million leeches sucking us dry.

      By 1994, eight years after Ronnie Reagan invited in tens of millions of
      liars, cheats thieves, Californians had had enough. Prop. 187 (Known as SOS
      or Save Our State) was put on the ballot. "The People of California find and
      declare as follows:

      "That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the
      presence of illegal aliens in this state.
      "That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused
      by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state.
      "That they have a right to the protection of their government from any
      person or persons entering this country unlawfully.
      "Therefore, the People of California declare their intention to provide for
      cooperation between their agencies of state and local government with the
      federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by
      and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States
      from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California."

      The voters passed it by a wide margin. At that time there were approximately
      1.3 million illegals in the state; over 300,000 minors. Lawsuits were filed
      and two federal judges declared the law unconstitutional in 1999. I told my
      friend that what we need is a federal version of Prop. 187, so I wrote one
      and sent it to him. He has a U.S. House member interested in the big
      magnet - welfare - which keeps illegals in this country. Illegals stay here
      because they know they can steal jobs and resources.

      I told my friend here is what members of Congress are going to go up
      against, besides America hating groups like the ACLU, La Raza and others
      because I did more research. I simply could not understand how those who
      enter this country by sneaking across the border would be entitled to free
      welfare, education, medical and all the other programs since they are NOT
      U.S. citizens. Well, I soon found out the ugly truth.

      Initially, I thought the decision to over turn Prop 187 was the genesis, but
      having done more research, here is the damning case once again bastardizing
      the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment:

      PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) - 457 U.S. 202 - Argued December 1, 1981;
      Decided June 15, 1982. Held:

      "A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds
      for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the
      United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny
      enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
      Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

      "(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the
      statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides
      that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
      protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an
      alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior
      cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due
      Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not
      include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the
      asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not
      "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its
      boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the
      Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase
      "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth
      Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is
      subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's
      territory. Pp. 210-216......

      "The court held that "the absolute deprivation of education should trigger
      strict judicial scrutiny, particularly when the absolute deprivation is the
      result of complete inability to pay for the desired benefit." Id., at 582.
      The court determined that the State's concern for fiscal integrity was not a
      compelling state interest, id., at 582-583; that exclusion of these children
      had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State,
      id., at 583; and that the educational needs of the children statutorily
      excluded were not different from the needs of children not excluded, ibid."

      In other words, too bad for the states of the Union and the taxpayers.
      Illegal aliens cannot be deprived of an education paid for by stealing from
      the taxpayers! Illegal alien students who have no legal right to be on U.S.
      soil. Here in Texas there are more than 400,000 ILLEGAL aliens minors in
      grades K-12 costing we Texans nearly $4 BILLION dollars a year. Those
      illegal "students" have been bleeding our schools dry.

      The court goes on to say that illegal alien students didn't have any control
      over their parents smuggling them into this country, so they are entitled to
      special consideration under the 14th Amendment. What rot. In 1982, 4
      justices on that court were appointed by Nixon, one by Eisenhower, one by
      LBJ, one by JFK and two by Reagan.

      When that decision was made, Congress had already passed immigration laws.
      Anyone who enters this country without going through the proper channels is
      here illegally. They are not "persons" invited in the US, they smuggle
      themselves across the border.

      Since the "supreme" court vomited up such a convoluted decision based on the
      Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, shall we look at
      the historical facts regarding the Fourteenth Amendment? The largest number
      of illegals come from Mexico - or at least until this last surge of the
      on-going invasion; 80% are Hondurans. Mexicans who illegally enter the US
      are Mexican citizens under their constitution and so are their kids, born or
      unborn regardless of whether they leave the country or not:

      Mexican Constitution - Chapter II - Article 30. "Mexican nationality is
      acquired by birth or by naturalization. A. Mexicans by birth are: I. Those
      born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
      their parents: II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a
      Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown
      father."

      The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “All persons born
      or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
      thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they
      reside.”

      Illegal aliens "reside" illegally on U.S. soil. And: "No state shall make or
      enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
      of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
      liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
      within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      Since illegal Mexicans are Mexican citizens, their allegiance is to Mexico,
      not any state of the Union where they illegally "reside". Honduras also has
      a constitution which says their citizens are Honduran citizens: ARTICLE
      28. - "No honduran by birth may be deprived of their nationality . This
      right we retain the hondurans by birth even when acquire another
      nationality." Illegal minors are not US citizens. They are persons who by
      birth owe their allegiance to Honduras, not the United States.

      El Salvador also has a constitution, but this one is probably for the
      lawyers because it's seriously only one sentence about citizenship, but
      later under the political part it reads something a little different:
      Article 71 - All Salvadorans more than eighteen years old are citizens. But,
      on page 29 is reads: "To be elected Deputy, one must be over twenty five
      years old, Salvadoran by birth, child of a Salvadoran father or mother....."

      The quoted research below is from Leo Donofrio. For those not familiar with
      his name, Leo is the attorney out in NJ who filed the first challenge to get
      Juan McCain and Barry Barack Soetoro Obama off the ballot in 2008. This goes
      to the heart of that outrageous Supreme decision in Plyler v Doe.

      "Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about
      the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29,
      2005:

      "The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language,
      Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the
      jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not
      owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it's ”a
      full and complete jurisdiction.”

      "This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can't
      claim they were unaware. But we don't have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it.
      The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on
      the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at
      http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

      "It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of
      freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they
      may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have
      on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman
      of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase: "[T]he
      provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to
      the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete
      jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’
      Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

      "Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

      "Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

      "Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois
      [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought
      to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part
      of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by
      the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and
      quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

      "Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment
      Framers meant:. "Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his
      comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the
      constitution:

      "[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all
      persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for
      that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter
      before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would
      seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be
      citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of
      what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between
      himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may
      depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship
      than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to
      parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United
      States.[4]

      And: "No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as
      further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

      "In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United
      States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons
      living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject
      to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every
      sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by
      proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the
      words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean
      fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

      "Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue: "Rep. John
      Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms
      the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright
      and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on
      March 9, 1866:

      "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply
      declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being
      born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing
      allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your
      Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

      "It's important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months
      before the 14th Amendment was proposed." End of excerpt.

      In Plyler v Doe, those "supreme" court justices said:

      "(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the
      statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides
      that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
      protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an
      alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior
      cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due
      Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not
      include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the
      asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not
      "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its
      boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the
      Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase
      "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth
      Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is
      subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's
      territory. Pp. 210-216"

      (a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the
      statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides
      that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
      protection of the laws."


      Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
      otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
      jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
      militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall
      any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
      life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
      against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
      process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
      just compensation."

      Now, here's where the argument starts: The Politics of Immigration: "1791
      (ratified): First 10 amendments to the Constitution ("Bill of Rights").
      Guarantee basic rights of freedom of religion and of speech, the right to
      protest, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches, and the right to
      due process, including the right to remain silent. Nothing in the text
      limits these rights to citizens; several rights are specifically guaranteed
      to "the people" or a "person."

      But - did that mean those who enter the country illegally? Congress has the
      absolute right to set immigration laws. Our immigration law says if you
      enter this country without being invited, without the proper documentation
      you're an illegal alien. So, how does that give that "person" a U.S.
      Constitutional right under the Bill of Rights?

      Right now the American people are beyond enraged about what's going on with
      the illegals invasion. Polls are showing the people want those illegal
      minors shipped out of here instead of dumped in their schools. There's no
      question the criminal impostor in the White House is going to attempt to use
      an Executive Order to grant amnesty to tens of millions of liars, cheats and
      thieves without any regard to background checks, health checks or anything
      else. Do you know EOs have been overturned by the courts? Yes, they have
      when a lawsuit is filed and properly argued.

      The BIG magnet all these years has been what they can steal from you, your
      children and grand children. Trillions of dollars spent on illegals since
      Reagan is paid for by borrowed money with the interest slapped on our backs.
      Want to drive millions and millions of illegals out of this country? STOP
      ALL WELFARE IN ANY FORM AND KICK ILLEGAL MINORS OUT OF AMERICA'S SCHOOLS,
      COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

      Get Ready To Get Sick – No Health Screenings of Illegals, What Isn't Being
      Reported on the Border Stampede and, in a liberal bastion of all places:
      Historic Boston Protest Against Illegals - thousands, not hundreds.

      GAME PLAN: Dirty Harry's bill is just about tailor made. It may need a
      little fine tuning to get the statutes up to speed. At the time, it had a
      grand total of 3 cosponsors; two Republicans and one Democrat. But, as I
      said, Sec. 503 needs to be removed. The simple bill I wrote using
      California's Prop 187 is more explicit. See Appendix at the end. Section 503
      of Reid's bill must be replaced with Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the bill I wrote.

      Congress goes back into session in a couple of weeks. Please call or fax
      your U.S. House member if he/she is a strong opponent of amnesty. The same
      for these specific senators: Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby who
      was one of the three cosponsors to Reid's bill in 1993. Tell them about
      Reid's bill, give the bill number: S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration
      Stabilization Act of 1993. Tell them you want it introduced in the House and
      Senate - with the exception about Sec. 503 that puts real teeth into cutting
      off benefits. If you can, fax the short bill I wrote and ask that Sec. 503
      of Reid's bill be deleted and Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the bill I wrote be
      inserted.

      This can be done by the time the Outlaw Congress reopens the candy store,
      September 8th. Get it introduced and put on the heat to get Boehner to put
      it to a vote. The same in the senate and let's see what Dirty Harry Reid has
      to say - after all, it would be 99% of his own bill!

      Democrats are in serious trouble over any amnesty and this latest surge of
      illegals regardless of age. We know the malignant narcissist would
      immediately veto the bill (even though he's an impostor president), BUT
      Congress has the power to over ride his veto. In a straight party vote in
      the House, it should pass. In the senate, we would need a half dozen
      Democrats and it would pass there. Democrats know Barry Soetoro aka Obama
      has become toxic. They value reelection more than a lame duck "president".
      Those would be Mary Kay Hagen (NC), Mark Pryor (AR) Mary Landrieu (LA.), and
      Mark Begich (AK). The following Democrats are too scared to comment on Obama
      threatening to use an EO to grant amnesty: Al Franken (Minn.), Mark Warner
      (Va.), Merkley (Ore.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.).

      Should it not get passed in this session ending December 31st, it can get
      reintroduced in January 2015. If the Republicans take the senate, then there
      will be NO excuses - pass the bill intact and over ride Barry's veto. Would
      it not be delicious irony for Dirty Harry's bill (with the mentioned
      additions from mine) to get passed into law?

      As for the U.S. Supreme Court: "[How] to check these unconstitutional
      invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the
      first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that
      such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the
      Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach
      and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three
      branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their
      usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. (*) FE 10:192

      Congress can make it very clear: The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v Doe was
      a bad decision because it made new "law" allowing ILLEGALS to receive
      benefits they have no right to since they are on U.S. soil illegally. God
      almighty. Tell your U.S. House member and Senator to stop being such gutless
      cowards. If "supreme' court justices make bad decision, impeach them or shut
      the hell up. We are fighting here for our very survival. We don't need
      sissies, wimps or political whores. We need warriors who aren't worried
      about their next election.

      This is going to take massive heat and we the people had better step up to
      the plate because illegals and their supporters are going to storm Congress
      next month demanding amnesty. They've announced their intentions. We the
      people must crush any amnesty and take away the big magnet of welfare in all
      forms. Have you had enough being raped to pay for illegals to get free
      medical when you are having trouble paying your own health premiums? Your
      child is about to be exposed to TB and other diseases because more than
      60,000 illegal minors are going to be put in schools across this country
      next month who are not only diseased, most of them speak no English. What a
      nightmare for school districts. Are you fed up with paying for all the
      crimes committed by illegals and the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating
      them?



      Then tell your US. rep and senator: No, but hell no - NO amnesty regardless
      of country of origin or how long an illegal has been here. Deport not
      reward.



      Hundreds More Criminal Illegal Aliens With Brutal Records Released Onto
      American Streets. "Earlier this year a report from the Center for
      Immigration Studies showed the Obama administration released 68,000 criminal
      illegal aliens onto the streets of the United States. Many of those released
      have criminal records of armed robbery, assault, rape and homicide. -In
      2013, ICE targeted only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially
      deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE’s
      attention after incarceration for a local arrest. ICE released 68,000
      criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by
      officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama
      administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens
      were not deportable."

      Demand they vote to pass Dirty Harry's bill eliminating his Sec. 503 with
      Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill I wrote denying illegals access to our
      schools and medical. See Appendix for my bill.

      Links:

      1 - Obama’s Deputies Release 169 Foreign Killers Into US Neighborhoods
      2 - Obama Preparing Executive Order To Flood Job Market With Millions Of
      Illegal Aliens
      (High tech & low skill which will hurt Americans of all races
      3 - Huge protest against illegal immigration in Massachusetts
      4 - While Democrats Push for Amnesty, 77% of Americans Want Illegals Sent
      Home
      While the numbers are bit outdated - we know they've grown exponentially-
      5 - Go look at how much we the people have been raped to give a free ride to
      liars, cheats and thieves.
      6 - Understanding Executive Orders and abuses

      Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

      © 2014 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved



      Share This Article

      Click Here For Mass E-mailing



      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty;
      2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country.
      She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever
      since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist
      who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy
      is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

      Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You
      can also sign up for her free email alerts.

      E-mail is: devvyk@...

      http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd650.htm