Skip to comments.
Like Californians, New Yorkers Suffer From Insanity (Cuomo Video)
ChicoER ^
| 10/28/10
| Chuck Wolk
Posted on 10/29/2010 7:09:57 AM PDT by Korah
Benjamin Franklin is credited with defining insanity as the action of constantly doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. Well with that understanding, it is my opinion that both California and New York voters are suffering from an extreme case of insanity. In California, Democrat Jerry Brown is holding a slight edge over Republican Meg Whitman 48% to 42%. Now I do believe that both Whitman and Paladino can win, if Republicans vote with the same enthusiasm they had during the primaries. However, if these numbers hold then it looks as if Jerry Brown will be the next governor of California. That, my friends, is insane, because Jerry Brown is the man who admittedly put California in debt by spending the surplus Ronald Reagan left. California has never climbed out of that debt because of the insane voters who continue to re-elect the same liberal Democrats who think like Jerry Brown does. So along with keeping both state houses under the Democrats' control, they could very well re-elect the worst governor ever to have held the office. THAT IS INSANE!
Meanwhile, over on America's coastline where the sun rises, New Yorkers are ready to do a similar thing by putting Andrew Cuomo in the governor's mansion. So, like Californians, New Yorkers also suffer from insanity. After all, it was Andrew's father Mario who screwed the state up so bad that a virtual unknown Republican candidate, George Pataki, defeated him in his bid for a fourth term. Well, now Andrew is running for governor against Carl Paladino. Unfortunately, it looks like New York will go the way of California by electing Andrew Cuomo as their next governor. The latest Rasmussen poll has Cuomo Leading Paladino 51% to 37%. This does not bode well for the Big Apple. Even if you ignore the pathetic shape of New York that was left by his father when he lost to Pataki in 1994, Andrew himself has his own serious issues. He is directly responsible for setting things up, along with Kirsten Gillibrand, Barney Frank, and Christopher Dodd, that destroyed the housing market, and thus sent America into an economic tailspin.
As Bill Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,Cuomo was the prime mover behind programs that destabilized Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were running these two lending institutions when George Bush tried to fix things. Unfortunately for Americans, Frank and Dodd stood in Bush's way and so the corrupt institutions were allowed to continue down the path of ruin that Cuomo personally set in motion. He is the one whose programs mandated that banks loan money to low-income and bad-credit rated home-buyers, who would be foreclosed and send the country into recession.
Along with Cuomo was his special counsel, the current senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand. It was Gillibrand who played the key role of furthering Cuomo's Labor Initiative and New Markets initiative (sub-prime mortgages). Gillibrand worked to strengthen the Davis-Bacon Act and drafted New Markets legislation for public and private investment in building infrastructure to revitalize lower income areas across the nation. What this all led to was three to four million families who are now facing foreclosure on homes they never should have been given loans for in the first place. However, you don't have to take my word about Cuomo's guilt. Just watch him take credit for it a video I have.
In the video at the link below,
Andrew Cuomo Proudly Takes Credit For The Sub-prime Debacle.
Remember, Andrew Cuomo was the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history. He made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that, in combination with many factors I stated above, helped to plunge Fannie and Freddie into the sub-prime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. President Bush wanted that monitoring, but the Democrats stopped him from putting it in place.
In reality, Cuomo turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money-down requirements. He knew that he was legalizing the very thing that a federal judge branded as "political kickbacks" to the brokers. That helped fuel the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans to unsuspecting Americans that had no credit, so they were forced to take adjustable-rate mortgages. Then when the interest rates rose, so did their payments, and thus they could no longer afford the overpriced homes that Cuomo's friends in the lending industry trapped them into buying. That is why three to four million families face foreclosure. This is the man New Yorkers are primed to elect as their next governor, and that is just insane!
As I said in the beginning of this article, the voters of both California and New York are suffering from an extreme case of insanity. Why else would they willingly put a couple of egg-sucking weasels in charge of the hen houses that already have a depleted supply of eggs? Fortunately for America, the voters in the rest of the country are not nearly as insane, because a lot of Democrats are going to be swept away in the coming Teanami on November 2. You will hear the MSM and pundits say that Nov. 2 was the climax of what has been brewing, but they would be wrong. What began as a rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile by MSNBC reporter Rick Santelli is not climaxing on Nov. 2, it is just beginning. The MSM refuses to understand that the anger of the voters is not only directed at the Democrats in Congress, but also at Obama and his socialist policies. I'm of the opinion that come November 6, 2012, Obama will feel the wrath of an even bigger Teanami that is just now beginning to brew.
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: New York
KEYWORDS: brown; cuomo; recession; subprime
These men need to be eliminated from the political scene forever!
1
posted on
10/29/2010 7:10:00 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: Korah
California had a balanced budget until the year 2000. It had to, because that was written into it’s Constitution. So when the Whitman campaign uses this line, that Brown put California in debt, it diminishes her.
California is in debt, because the Legislature had spent like drunken sailors for the last decade. Despite being in an untenable situation as early as 2003, the state’s officials continued to spend.
Can it be argued that he helped set up the public union situation we face today? Yes. And in that light, it can be said he impacted us negatively. And yes, he was god awful in his first term. We don’t want him back.
And then you look at the turd in our punch bowl, and all you can do is look at the floor and shake your head.
After spending $144 million and counting, of her own funds, Whitman still can’t pull away from Brown.
Folks, if we’re going to loft people like McCain and Whitman to be our nominees, then don’t be surprised of we continue to lose elections.
Neither of them are fit to hold public office.
2
posted on
10/29/2010 7:23:46 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(All hail Prince Skid-mark, Barack Hussein Obama, constantly soiling himself and our nation.)
To: Korah
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen.
Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
LAZARUS LONG
3
posted on
10/29/2010 7:31:27 AM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
To: Korah
I heard that quote about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results attributed to Einstein, not Franklin.
4
posted on
10/29/2010 7:34:33 AM PDT
by
pingman
(Price is what you pay, value is what you get.)
To: DoughtyOne
Screw you!
Brown spent Reaga’s surplus and California has been in debt ever since.
People like you really friggen piss me off. You want Brown you jac*^#s, then you take him.
But DON”T TELL THIS old woman what I don’t know. I was here when he screwed this state up. I’ll be dammned if I’ll let some idiot who [probably stayed home because they didn’t like McCain and so by default you voted for Obama.
Get back from me SATAN!
5
posted on
10/29/2010 7:38:42 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: pingman
I don’t know, I didn’t write it, but you could be right. I’ll look it up.
6
posted on
10/29/2010 7:39:59 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: Korah
Screw you!
Very powerful argument. I'll have to give that some thought.
Brown spent Reagas surplus and California has been in debt ever since.
First of all, who is Reaga? And second of all, that's not true. Brown probably did spend Reagan's surplus, but the state hasn't been running a defict the way the federal government does.
People like you really friggen piss me off. You want Brown you jac*^#s, then you take him.
And I quote, "And yes, he was god awful in his first term. We dont want him back." So not only is your understanding of the way the state works disconnected from reality, but your comprehension skills are abysmal as well.
But DONT TELL THIS old woman what I dont know.
I don't have to. You have displayed what you do or don't know.
I was here when he screwed this state up.
I was here too. And I was here when Dukmajian, and Wilson were here signing balanced budgets.
Ill be dammned if Ill let some idiot who [probably stayed home because they didnt like McCain and so by default you voted for Obama.
Wouldn't not voting for Obama be a vote for McCain? Why yes, I believe it would. Thanks for the tip.
Get back from me SATAN!
SATAN is it? LOL
7
posted on
10/29/2010 8:06:52 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
To: DoughtyOne
Love the man all you want, and deny the truth. Brown is the reason we are where we are at. Except fro Prop13, which he tried hard to defeat, and says he will work hard to get rid of if elected, California would even be in bigger trouble. Listen to what Douglas Allen-Taylor of the Berkley Daily Planet said almost two years ago about Brown and the problem he left us with.
Undercurrents: Here Comes Jerry Brown to Push California Over the Brink
By J. Douglas Allen-Taylor
Wednesday February 25, 2009
Californias recent marathon budget crisis provides our latest and best example of the states growing ungovernability. It is not so much that our Republican/conservative friends were willing to risk taking the state into economic collapse in order to force some ideologically driven concessions. It is that for the longest time, there appeared to be no practical, rational, sensible way for the rest of us to stop them.
But a far more terrible thought for the sober minded is the fact that the widely acknowledged front-runner to be Californias next leader in this era of government-financial-social crisis is California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the man whose actionsor inactionsoriginally set loose the forces in the state that eventually led us to the current political/budget crisis.
The two-thirds vote requirement for legislative tax increase measures that Republican legislators used to hold up this years California budget passage has been in place since 1933, but that requirement has not led to imminent state government collapse until recent years, following the June 1978 passage of Proposition 13. That propositionbilled by its proponents as a way to ease soaring property tax burdens, but in reality the opening salvo in an increasingly successful conservative attempt to cut the fiscal legs from under governmentcreated the atmosphere in which our Republican and conservative friends could envision the virtual collapse of governmental institutions as a positive thing.
The success of that conservative effort was not inevitable, but came about in part because the governor of California at the time of Prop. 13s passageJerry Brownfailed in responding responsibly to widespread complaints during his first gubernatorial term about what was perceived as state and local government officials using unrestricted property tax increases to fix budget problems rather than instituting needed belt-tightening and fiscal and programmatic reforms.
In his 1982 book on the Brown political dynasty (California Dreaming: The Political Odyssey of Pat and Jerry Brown, published by Berkeleys Nolo Pressa must-read for anyone wishing to understand the Jerry Brown phenomenon), journalist Roger Rapoport wrote at length about the role Jerry Browns actions and policies as governor played in the ultimate passage of Prop. 13.
In the 1970s, Mr. Rapoport wrote, economy moves at the state level systematically increased local governments share of partnership programs funded jointly by municipalities and Sacramento. By mandating new or improved programs without financing them, [Jerry] Brown and the Legislature forced counties and cities to pick up the tab.
The combined impact of these
factors strained local governments. For instance, in Alameda County, the homeland of [Governor Browns] urban strategy, property taxpayers had to make up $4.8 million on [state] underfunding of partnership programs, $2 million in Medi-Cal reimbursement, $2.2 million on county overmatch and pay $1.7 million for state-mandated programs in 1977.
To meet all state costs, many county commissioners were forced to decrease support of local programs, leaving less money for municipalities to meet their minimum daily requirements. Funds siphoned off in this manner contributed to Californias growing state surplus.
It was in this atmosphere that tax rebel Howard Jarvis crafted Prop. 13.
According to Mr. Rapoport, the California Legislature considered three separate property tax reform bills in 1977 in an attempt to head off the Jarvis tax revolt, state bills 1, 12, and 154. Mr. Rapoport quotes the California Tax Reform Associations legislative advocate Dean Tipps as saying at the time that of these three, Senate Bill 154 was the most progressive. It was supported by organized labor, senior citizen, community groups, consumer advocates, tax reformers and political groups. But it was opposed by Jerry Brown. Instead, he supported SB 12the only one of the three bills that failed to close a single tax loophole and provided the least relief to home owners, renters and senior citizens. Along with Jerry, the real estate and business lobbies supported SB 12.
Rapoport writes that SB 12 was soundly defeated in the Legislature in 1977, and that Mr. Brown then switched his support to SB 1, which was put on the June, 1978 ballot as Proposition 8 as the alternative to Prop. 13. It was too little, too late. Prop. 13 passed, and Californias slide into possible oblivion began.
Mr. Rapoport suggested that in Californias government funding crisis on the late 1970s, it was not concern for Californias future that so much concerned Mr. Brown as it was his own.
The progressive Americans for Democratic Action, Mr. Rapoport wrote, put out a 10-page newspaper on Jerry Brown in 1977 describing their feelings about Mr. Browns ambitions. Within the next few months, the ADA wrote, California and the rest of the nation will be inundated with the accomplishments of Governor Jerry Brown. Millions of dollars will be spent to publicize the man who wants to be re-elected governor of California in 1978 and go on to capture the presidency in 1980. Politically, the governor is a combination of Don Juan and Machiavelli. Hes glib, charming and extraordinarily skillful in the handling of the truth, a masterful politician in his use of patronage, public relations and the understanding of power. His commitment to progressive government has weakened as his presidential ambitions have grown. California lags behind many other states in dealing with issues of concern to liberals. Much of Browns support among liberals, labor, minorities and environmentalists has been maintained by patronage and rhetoric rather than accomplishments. Buzz words and public relations do not solve state or national problems.
That Mr. Brown left Californias problems for others to solve and set the stage for Californias demise should come as no surprise for anyone studying his recent tenure as Oakland mayor. Mr. Brown left Oakland in a shambles, with a capital fund depleted of money for needed neighborhood upgrades, hidden budget debt and underfunded programs that will take city residents years to pay back, a police scandal that leaves Oakland under federal court supervision, a shattered school system that Mr. Brown publicly laughed about and helped bring down. Theres a good bit more, but there are only so many words available in a column.
And yet, Mr. Brown remains a popular figure in Oakland. Why?
In large part, the attorney general benefited from compliant media while he was Oakland mayor, media which often treated his failures as lovable eccentricities rather than public disasters, failing themselves to hold Mr. Brown accountable.
That compliant media treatment of Mr. Brown continues in Oakland to this day.
Earlier this month, San Francisco Chronicle East Bay columnist Chip Johnson wrote a column in which he criticized the effect of Oaklands current zoning problems on the citys economic development (Oakland Zoning Rules A Minefield For Business, Feb. 6).
Lamenting the fact that a coffee shop pal of his was having trouble opening up a business in Oaklands Chinatown in part because city staff was requiring him to pay $1,900 for a staff internal review to determine whether a conditional use permit should be issued, Mr. Johnson blamed the problem on Oaklands Byzantine zoning ordinance.
The Oakland City Council approved a new general plan in 1998, but it has taken the city 11 years to implement it, Mr. Johnson wrote. The citys zoning study and recommendations are expected to be presented to the City Council this fall ... With zoning this screwed up, Oakland cannot compete in the marketplace, whether its attracting new business development, maintaining long-term retailers or encouraging small business ownership. What remains to be seen is whether [current Oakland Mayor Ron] Dellums can separate public policy from political loyalties long enough to allow the citys professional staffand Walter Cohen, the newly appointed director of the citys Community and Economic Development Agencyto sort out the mess and offer reasonable business opportunities to its citizens and people who want to do business here.
There are two things of note in Mr. Johnsons passage. The first is the passive it has taken the city 11 years, the second is the active skepticism that Mr. Dellums, the current mayor, can sort out the mess.
Whats distinctly missing in Mr. Johnsons analysis? The fact that Oaklands zoning cleanup was deliberately stopped by former Mayor Brown so that his favored developers could maneuver developments in through the zoning cracks (the indication that the general plan passage was in 1998, the year before Mr. Brown took office as Oakland mayor, ought to have been a clue), and that Mr. Dellums immediately reinstituted the zoning cleanup that Mr. Johnson is calling for when Mr. Dellums took office in 2007.
But Mr. Brown has ever been the charmer and manipulator.
In the same year Prop. 13 passed, J.D. Lorenz, a former Cesar Chavez and Ralph Nader associate who had resigned as Jerry Browns head of the states California Economic Development Department, wrote a first-person analysis of Mr. Brown, The Man On The White Horse. In one passage, he summed up his opinion of Jerry Brown, the politician and political office holder:
Jerry was the mirror of the society in the mid-1970s, Mr. Lorenz wrote. He was giving us, the voters, what he thought we wanted. And he was usually correct in his estimates. Even in November 1976, almost two years after he had succeeded to the governorship, he was scoring a 78 percent approval rating in the California Poll, a level of popularity unprecedented in California history. If we didnt like what we saw, we had only ourselves to hold accountable. We were looking at our own reflection in the mirror. If we wanted Jerry to cut out the reliance on symbols, he would oblige. If we wanted him to pay more attention to black people, he would do so. He had no commitment one way or another. He didnt care. The sole concern he had was expressing the popular will successfully enough to be re-elected governor in 1978 and president in 1984. Jerry was the totally democratic man. Like the proverbial weathervane, he turned in whichever direction the winds blew him.
It would seem to be almost bizarre, doesnt it, that while it was Jerry Brown who helped begin Californias fiscal descent, we are poised to put him back in place to give us the final push over the brink. No wonder the rest of the country considers us weird.
============================================================
I know Brown will do all he can to get rid of Prop 13, and I'll be damned if I'll go to my death bed knowing he helped get rid of something I personally worked my fanny of to help get it passed. I was involved with Jarvis's group back then, so I do know from which I speak.
8
posted on
10/29/2010 9:00:57 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: DoughtyOne
If that is not enough reason for you to be real afraid of Brown winning, then think about this, it comes from
Big Government.com and is written by
Thomas Del Beccaro.
California is facing nearly The Toughest of Times. We face historically high unemployment, perennial budget crises and more. Dont think it could get any worse? Think again. If Jerry Brown is elected, in one short stroke, he could deal a potentially crippling blow to the California economy before it gets a chance to get back on its feet.
Even for a committed political observer, volunteer and commentator such as myself, it seems implausible – but true – that the stakes for elections grow with each successive election. For California, the 2010 gubernatorial election unquestionably could be the most important election ever and not necessarily for a good reason. If Jerry Brown is elected, he and his fellow Democrats could deliver a devastating blow to California.
We well know that Californias unemployment rate is above 12%. We also know that well over 100,000 people are leaving California on a yearly basis. Beyond that, California faces an exodus of businesses – large and small alike. So it can be no surprise that state revenues have declined nearly $40 billion over the last three years as a result of the declining taxpayer base.
We also well know why California is having a tougher time than many other states. In recent years, California is consistently ranked near the bottom of states in which to do business. According to Joseph Vranich, president of JV Executive Consulting Inc. in Irvine: Its no mystery what causes companies to leave California: High taxes, undue regulation, workers comp costs, a legal environment stacked against businesses and lengthy and costly construction permitting requirements. Indeed, California finished tied for last in the Country in Forbes Overall Tax Burden survey measuring tax burdens and structure.
Could thinks get worse? Under a Brown Governorship, the answer would have to be: YES.
Keep in mind that Brown has no published or unpublished plan for dealing with Californias many crises and that uncertainty hurts California businesses as much as anywhere else. But that wont be the worst of it. If Jerry Brown is elected Governor, every business owner in California can be sure that Democrats under Brown would roll back workers compensation reform in California to pre-2004 rates.
California small businesses and large employers simply cannot afford the cost explosion that that would entail. Recently, a Bay Area business owner told me that his companys workers comp rates rose from $650,000 to $4 million per year before the reforms were passed. Now his rates are around $950,000 per year in his labor intensive business. Already facing cash flow issues, he believed that any workers comp roll back would more than jeopardize the jobs of his workers. Obviously, his company is not alone in that predicament.
Dont think the Democrats would do such a thing? Know that they have pushed at least partial rolls backs every year since workers comp was reformed. Or perhaps you would like to ask the Central Valley, which features cities with unemployment rates more than double the state average, just how bad government policy can be.
Dont think Jerry Brown would allow it to happen? Well, given that the unions are funding his campaign and the negative ads on Meg Whitman do you really think Brown could say no to them? Are you willing to take that chance?
In sum, the environment for California employers could get worse if Jerry Brown is elected much worse. The resulting higher unemployment and higher deficits (even higher than today) could leave California in deep trouble for at least another 6 years four years of Brown and at least 2 more to recover from that.
Can your business afford that? Can you afford that? In my view, California cant and so we cannot afford Jerry Brown under any circumstances this year or any other.
9
posted on
10/29/2010 9:17:49 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: Korah
Love the man all you want, and deny the truth. Brown is the reason we are where we are at. Except fro Prop13, which he tried hard to defeat, and says he will work hard to get rid of if elected, California would even be in bigger trouble. Listen to what Douglas Allen-Taylor of the Berkley Daily Planet said almost two years ago about Brown and the problem he left us with.
Once again you are back on the kick that I like or support Jerry Brown. Neither of these claims can be substantiated. That being the case, you need to knock it off or continue to be recognized for what you are doing.
You can post a 10,000 page volume on Brown if you like, but if you have been living in the state since Brown was governor, you either know that Dukmajian and Wilson ran balanced budgets or I have to question your knowledge at least in part. The California Constitution required them to. You can't get around that. Other than bonds that may have been established under Brown and may be still being serviced today, Brown debt was not handed down to today.
Sure Brown was a digusting governor. Sure he has been problematic where ever he has served in the state. That doesn't mean that he left the state with a big debt when he left office, which grew every year since to bring us where we are today. That non-factual claim has been made by the Whitman campaign. It's part of the reason why she is having such a hard time gaining traction. Brown did plenty to destroy his credibility when he was governor. Address that. Don't make stuff up. It doesn't fly. I and others don't like it when Democrats make up lies to gain support. I like it even less when my side does it. It destroys our credibility and undermines our ability to criticize the Democrats for doing it. This is why folks can say things like, "Both parties do it." Sadly, members of both parties do lie. They shouldn't.
I know Brown will do all he can to get rid of Prop 13, and I'll be damned if I'll go to my death bed knowing he helped get rid of something I personally worked my fanny of to help get it passed. I was involved with Jarvis's group back then, so I do know from which I speak.
Yes, Brown will do all he can to do away with Prop. 13. He will also help the Legislature reduce the two-thirds requirement to get new taxes passed.
I respect the job Jarvis and his helpers did to get Prop. 13 passed. So while I don't doubt you know a lot and are a good person, it is still non-factual that Brown created the first budget deficits that linger until today.
He did help set up the public sector unions. He did plenty of other bad things. We are still dealing with the effects of those dismal policies. And as it relates to that, he did cause us undue financial burden. We still need to keep on the straight and narrow as it applies to his actions. That's all I'm saying.
That is support for the truth. That's what Conservatives do.
10
posted on
10/29/2010 9:33:54 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
To: Korah
Korah, your continued posts to me about Brown are of no value to me. I don’t support or even like the man. I know what he is and have for upwards of 36 years, when I voted against him the first time.
You’re continued misperception is not serving you well here.
11
posted on
10/29/2010 9:43:21 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
To: DoughtyOne
A balanced budget does not erase the debt that Brown set the state on. You can balance the budget all you desire, but if the debt is still present the state is in the red.
I love the way conservatives have bought into the book keeping scheme of the left to justify their continued spending sprees under the allusion that they have a balanced budget. Try running your business that way and you will be arrested and charged with fraud for cooking the books.
As I said, Brown put us in a debt we have not recovered from.
12
posted on
10/29/2010 10:20:45 AM PDT
by
Korah
To: Korah
Korah, you know as well as I do that prior to 2004 the state couldn’t carry budget deficits on it’s books. Please either stick to the facts or quit addressing me.
13
posted on
10/29/2010 10:33:11 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(BHO fans said I was a hater, dismissed my thoughts. Sure glad our side isn't like that.)
To: Korah
And so do their sisters, cousins and aunts (Brothers,
cousins and uncles too.) My consolation here is that
their acts in office will further this goal. BTW New
York City (I’m not sure about the State, I should check)
all of a sudden changed over to scanned paper ballots.
The poll worker did aver that there was a paper trail
but one did not get that personally, and one only had
the screen’s assurance that one’s vote was even registered.
One could check the little numbers (mechanical system)
before and after in the old machines, to see 1. the
vote was counted 2. it was counted in the right column
14
posted on
11/03/2010 3:42:04 PM PDT
by
cycjec
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson