o'sophist - o'illegal is Race Pandering For Hispanic Votes

From: AmeriPAC at http://ameripac.org Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010

 

    http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2010/05/illegals-read-arizona-law-sb1070-hb2162.html

 

A     ALERT: Page 1 Section E. of the Arizona Immigration Law.

        A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER   HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

    

       Support Arizona's Immigration Law NOW!
   Arizona Has Passed STRONG Law Against Illegal Immigration.  The Obama, Holder, Janet Napolitano and other lawyers and politicians in the White House respond and: Admit they have not read the 10 page Arizona Immigration Law , Threaten to sue the State of Arizona, Race pander for Hispanic Votes, falsely claim to Profile everyone with brown skin as an Illegal Mexican. These lawyers do not seem to understand Probable Cause. It is defined as - Reasonable cause; having more evidence for than against; a reasonable belief that a crime has or is being committed and is the basis for all lawful searches and arrests.

    For example, a police officer may claim there is probable cause for attempted theft when someone is found trespassing on private property late at night wearing a stocking mask, in order to justify stopping and searching the person for possession of criminal tools. Then ask for ID.

Being in the U.S illegally is already a crime and checking ID's is sensible?

OF COURSE it is -- but the federal government has FAILED in its duty to put a STOP to the illegal immigration INVASION at our southern border; so, the people of Arizona have "stepped up to the plate" and done it themselves!

Even though this is a law that EVERY STATE IN AMERICA SHOULD PASS, Arizona is coming under attack by the forces we've fought so many times before: the pro-illegal immigration lobby. Now Obama and angry politician's are terrorizing American Cities by weakening the authority of law enforcement to use probable cause to fight crime. American's seem to have probable cause to be concerned about the White House failing to protect American communities.

It's time to FIGHT BACK -- and we've got just the way to fight them!  Simply put, the new Arizona law will make it a crime under State law to be in the country illegally. It would also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants. Other provisions of the bill allow lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them. As Gov. Brewer said when signing the law, this "protects every Arizona citizen," and she said the state MUST act because the federal government has FAILED.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

EXACTLY. Arizona alone spends $3 billion a year to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens. But, as has happened with every other State facing this invasion, the federal government has done NOTHING to stop the flow of illegals from the south.

Of course, the response from Barack Hussein Obama and his liberal cronies in Congress was exactly as expected: cries of "racism" and "profiling," instead of listening to the voices of the American people DEMANDING they enforce the laws that are already on the books. In fact, numerous polls show a HUGE majority of public support for this new law, and many polls conducted over the last few years show that 81% of Americans believe that "local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration" -- 81 percent!

But despite all of this, supporters of illegal immigration are trying to REVERSE Arizona's law, STOP Congress from enforcing existing laws, and PREVENT any other State from passing a law like Arizona's -- and that means WE have to take action NOW!

TELL EVERY SINGLE GOVERNOR AND MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO SUPPORT ARIZONA'S NEW LAW: SEND YOUR FAXES NOW!

It's already started: supporters of illegal immigration are now busing protesters in to the Arizona capitol from as far away as Los Angeles. They have surrounded the capitol building, demanding their "rights" -- meaning, their "rights" to BREAK THE LAW by coming to this country ILLEGALLY!!!

Not only that -- they're going so far as to threaten to MURDER Americans with axes and shovels! Have you even HEARD that on the mainstream media news? Of course not -- but it's right there on YouTube for all the world to see!

WE MUST FIGHT BACK AGAINST THESE PROPONENTS OF BREAKING OUR LAWS AND THREATENING OUR CITIZENS!

So, we've set up our website to enable you to send "Blast Faxes" to every single U.S. Senator, every single U.S. Representative, and every single U.S. State Governor, ALL AT ONCE, demanding that they SUPPORT Arizona's new law against illegal immigration, and SUPPORT efforts for every single state to pass the same law!

For about what it would cost you in time and telephone charges, you can send Blast Faxes to Democrats, Republicans, Independents -- EVERYONE in Congress and EVERY Governor, DEMANDING that they supporting putting a STOP to illegal immigration!   Please, take action right away to DEMAND that Congress and Governors SUPPORT the new law against illegal immigration recently passed by Arizona, and to ENCOURAGE every single State to pass the same law!
 
It's time we stood up and said enough is enough!  VOTE in every state and every election by helping AmeriPAC send support where it is needed.

Please join us with your AmeriPAC donation TODAY. Thank you.  For more information, visit www.ameripac.org

Sincerely, Alan M. Gottlieb, Chairman, AmeriPAC www.AmeriPAC.org 

P.S. It's really VERY VERY SIMPLE: As state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, AZ, stated, "Illegal is illegal. We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?  Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans. And they have the RIGHT to pass laws enforcing existing laws against illegal immigration!

Politicians in at least five states are calling for their state legislatures to adopt immigration laws that mirror Arizona's new law -- let's make that ALL FIFTY STATES!  Send your faxes right away to make sure these elected officials get OUR message, and not the pro-illegal immigration message of bussed-in protestors -- Thank you

 

Please make checks payable to: American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC) PO Box Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

---

o'humor - Cap'n Tax (sovereignty)

narrative - http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/obama-to-give-away-our-sovereignty-to-new-world-order-in-december/

world gov't 'toon - http://www.thedrakingpoint.com/cartoons/view/219/swing-voters

October 17, 2009...12:18 pm

Obama to GIVE AWAY our SOVEREIGNTY to New World Order in December

NO DEMOCRACY – NO CIVIL RIGHTS – NO CONSTITUTION – NO FREEDOM – COMMUNIST STATE

On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN.  In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

 Lord Monckton served as a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher.  He has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to a debate to which Gore has refused.

Monckton sued to stop Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in British schools due to its inaccuracies.  The judge found in-favor of Monckton, ordering 9 serious errors in the film to be corrected.  Lord Monckton travels internationally in an attempt to educating the public about the myth of global warming.

Click the Link to Lord Monckton's entire 95-minute speech in which he utterly destroys the so-called 'science' behind global warming.    LINK to the 95m speech

Click here to sign petition opposed to Cap and Trade.

Capping and Trading for Profit

By Jack Duckworth

The Washington Times reports that three utilities and two manufactures, Nike Inc. and Apple Inc., resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the chamber's fight against the proposed "cap-and-trade" legislation ("Backers of climate bill quit chamber," Page 1, Tuesday).

I worked for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, for 32 years, and that experience taught me that no corporation or utility acts in the interest of the American environmental or social conscience.  You can be assured that Nike, Apple and the three utilities want a cap-and-trade bill to pass the House and Senate because it will strengthen their position in the marketplace and increase their profits.

Nike has installed energy-monitoring devices in its manufacturing plants in China and Vietnam in an effort to cut energy consumption.  That's a noble effort, but even if Nike fails to cut its energy consumption, it will not be penalized by a U.S. cap-and-trade law because its energy consumption and its manufacturing take place outside U.S. borders.

Apple is in the same boat with its overseas production.  It has undertaken a program to reduce the energy consumption of its finished products, but it will not suffer any impact to its profits due to passage of a cap-and-trade bill.

The three utilities that want to see a cap-and-trade bill passed are PG&E of California, Exelon Corp. of Chicago and PNM Resources Inc. of New Mexico.  PG&E has been heavily invested in hydroelectric generation since it came into being and has significant nuclear power generating resources; both of these will be profit boons under a cap-and-trade bill.  Eighty-three percent of Exelon's electric generation resources are nuclear, which will make it a profit king under a cap-and-trade bill.  PNM Resources is a 10-percent owner in the Palo Alto nuclear-generating station near Phoenix.  All of these corporations have everything to gain and nothing to lose if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

Read the rest of the story at the Washington Times

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• OP/ED: A Sure-Fire Economy Killer
• Columnist Of The Day: Myron Ebell; Waxman-Markey Bill
• Cap and trade vote today, complete with AP spin
• Injuries mount for inept Bills

---

o'who? - Pray for our country.

Google results for "John L. Perry" and coup:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22John+L.+Perry%22+coup&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

From: gg Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php?ref=fpblg

Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic."   Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's radical ideal" -- and would "restore and defend the Constitution."  Newsmax has since removed the column from its website.

A statement by NewsMax.com:

Statement from Newsmax Regarding Blogger [John L. Perry]

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: Newsmax Media

     In a blog posting to Newsmax, John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military.   He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.

     After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to ensure that this article was not misinterpreted.  It was removed a short time after being posted.

     Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

     Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA.   He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

---

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention

By: John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem."   Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World.  If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized.  That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont.  Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.  So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."  Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win?  Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty?  Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation?  Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation.  Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars.  Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America.  A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable?  Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem.  Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

---

~~ added by rfh:

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

source: http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

Enlisted:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  So help me God."  (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Officer:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."  (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

---

Military Officer's Oath Is Increasingly to Protect The Constitution

By Rick Erickson, posted on GOPUSA December 30, 2003

source: http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230p.shtml

On December 13, 1991, Medal of Honor recipient and Officer Candidate School Commanding Officer, Colonel Wesley Fox, administered to me and 184 others the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.   So help me God."

Not until years later, after being entrusted with the leadership of Marine infantrymen, did I truly understand the significance of my oath and corresponding officership.  As I came to learn and understand, the oath applied in and out of uniform, including on-duty and off-duty exploits against anyone within or without who would challenge and distort our Constitution, its promotion of liberty and its basis in moral and just causes.

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-class conservatism.  Clinton's eight-year politicization of the military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.  Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military.

Thankfully, officer resistance ultimately prevailed and, with the election of George W. Bush in 2000, everything returned to order for service people.  Between 1992 and 2000, neither the officer's oath nor the Constitution's language changed to accommodate popular politics.  Activists, however, were quick to identify the government branch now most aligned with liberal causes - the courts.  Blanketing pre-positioned left-wing judges with civilian, civil rights cases, the activist agenda was to transcend rulings from their judges to coerce service people into following judicial orders over constitutional ones.  The end was to corrupt the military's separate body of law specifically drafted to be more exacting of morality and discipline.

For example, even though service people overwhelmingly do not want to serve with declaring homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) already has it in the works to rewrite the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in a way that advances homosexual conduct like the State of Texas was forced to do so in Lawrence v. Texas. Hoping to persuade that citizens of military and civilian society have the same purpose, the ACLU wants service people to replace their age-old Code with something much more decadent and much less regimented.

Of late, and upon the inexorable lie that the Constitution's authors meant to accommodate atheists, the ACLU directed the Marine Corps' Commandant to "nip this in the bud immediately" after a photo of uniformed Marines bowing their heads in prayer for the president went highly publicized.  Anticipate that, as with its gamble on other fronts, the ACLU will petition our courts until they find a judge to force upon officers a different oath - one that excludes "So help me God" as its salutation.  In the end, the ACLU wants the military to mirror popular civilian culture, but devastatingly gone with the UCMJ will be combat cohesion, moral duty and decisive action on the battlefield.

To be sure, groups like the ACLU are domestic enemies of the United States.  They deliberately distort the Constitution to promote their radical agendas.  Worst of all, no court shows signs of abating this destructive influence in our civil or military law.  Consequently, it is well with the officer's oath to support and defend the Constitution's foundation in order that no enemy directly or indirectly undoes the Constitution's intended language to such an extreme that officers will have nothing left worthy of their pledge or of their armed service.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

---

If we honored its tenents, Imagine: Constitution Day is Thursday, Sep't. 17th (school/teacher mandate)

The original message below the 'blue bar' toward the bottom reminds us about our American Heritage and the Constitution of the United States. Some links for reference:  (source books, online:  http://harrold.org/rfhextra/books.html & history, links: http://harrold.org/rfhextra/history.html)   Historical Documents: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, all Amendments, The The Federalist Papers, The Monroe Doctrine, Presidential Inaugural Addresses, The Emancipation Proclamation, The Gettysburg Address. [ also see, below: Americana Phonic ]  Important U.S. Historical Documents (source: The Junto Society, Also, well organized and heavily indexed, this large-type book is a vital part of our heritage and our future. Free  Download:  FREEDOM.ZIP (40KB) from R.E. Harvey, Glendale, AZ.   In Windows 3.xx/9x .hlp (help) format. Also, from the Library of Congress:   Early U.S., Congressional, Historical Documents (1774-1873) including The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781) and the Constitution, United States (1787) [RhymeZone] plus The U.S. Constitution and the 27 Amendments Plus, in easy-to-print plain text from LibertyForAll.net: Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution.  And alt 1 & alt 2 with historical references [Wikipedia] + US Representative David Crockett's famous speech, "Not Yours to Give." (alt src, print format) ~ plus ~ The Declaration of Abroath from Wars of Independence (BBC, Scottish History) and Scran News: Declaration of Arbroath, 6 April 1320 [read/print in plain text] (quote source: BBC, History, Scottish History: The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320, "Like the American Declaration of Independence, which is partially based on it, it is seen by many as the founding document of the Scottish nation. It was drafted on the 6th April 1320..." ) Traditional American Values & Founding Fathers' Quotes also see: history, links and U.S. Flag, Pledge of Allegiance Constitution Lesson Plans: K-12 & West Point Curriculum from "The Constitutional Sources Project" (source: ConSource.org) Documents that started America ~~ rfh America, c.1620 Mayflower/Pilgrims (source: Caleb Johnson's MayFlowerHistory.com history) America: (link source: Redevelopment.com) Documents That Started America The Declaration of Independence The Federalist Papers, 1787 - 1788 American History in Patriotic Sounds and Music   + copies of the Declaration of Independence to print: Dunlap ver (Printed Text - No Signatures) (112k) -or- Stone ver (Cursive Text With Signatures) (239k) Constitution Lesson Plans: K-12 & West Point Curriculum   from "The Constitutional Sources Project" (source: ConSource.org) (also see American & Founding Quotations & Books and Texts, online ) Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics  National Archives: read, history of, download, or print copies of U.S. Founding Documents: • The Declaration of Independence • The Constition of the United States • The Bill of Rights • download Hi-Resolution images of Founding Documents • biographies of The Founding Fathers: Delegates to the Constitutional Convention (1787) • sign and print a personalized copy of the Declaration of Independence Rights of People (Constitutional & Citizenship Educational Resources)  The Constitution of the United States of America The Bill of Rights, The First Ten Amendments The Remaining Amendments [to the Contitution] (Amendments XI-XXVII to the Constitution of the United States) Washington's Vision (Wikipedia biograph: 1st President of the United States, George Washington [term of office: April 30, 1789 March 3, 1797], (genealogy of: born February 22, 1732 died December 14, 1799)) The Writings of George Augustine Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, Edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (1931-44), Preface to the Electronic Edition: Frank E. Grizzard, Jr., Washington Resources at the University of Virginia Library State of the Union Address, January 8, 1790 (link source: Gutenberg.org 17K+ free etexts, also see: Harrold's links to free online books) And, from the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) + Headlines from around the Web Foundational Documents Declaration of Independence U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights - Constitutional amendments 1-10 Constitutional Amendments 11-27 The Powers of Congress - the constitutional authority to enact legislation Former U.S. Rep. David "Davy" Crockett's [biograph] (1786 - 1836) Famous Speech "Not Yours To Give" Welcome to The Search a comprehensive database of quotations on various topics. Day: All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Month: All Months January February March April May June July August September October November December All Years or: Keyword: Timelines of Liberty (source: Poet Patriot) also see: • Books Online • Today-in-History • Traditional American Values and Founding Fathers' Quotations or see: • Quotations only (rfh) Original Message  From: Bob Livingston Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Subject: Liberty Alert from Bob Livingston

This Thursday, Sept. 17, is Constitution Day. It is a day specifically designated by an act of Congress for Americans to honor the remarkable document that created our system of government.  The date was chosen because the Constitution was approved at the original Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787. The act that created Constitution Day mandates that all publicly funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day.  Sadly, our schools have done a dreadful job teaching students about the Constitution.  What else would you expect when most teachers have no idea what the Constitution says? While every politician pays lip service to the Constitution (the President, Vice President and every member of Congress take an oath to "preserve and protect" it), the sad truth is that vast majority of actions taken by the Federal government today are not authorized by the Constitution. I have heard it said that, if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced today, the Federal government would be 20 percent of its present size and would cost 20 percent of its present budget.  I think those numbers are an exaggeration; I suspect the truth would be closer to 10 percent. Just imagine: No foreign aid, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health, Agriculture or Homeland Security. No commissions, bureaucratic monstrosities or other meddlesome agencies that "harass our people and eat out their substance." (That's an actual indictment of King George from the Declaration of Independence.) What would this country be like if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced?  I hope some day we'll come a lot closer to finding out than we are today. —Chip Wood

---