Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate passes support of 2nd Amendment and to keep us out of the UN Arms Trade Treaty bill.
US Senate Votes ^ | 23 March 2013 | US Senate

Posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult

S.Amdt. 139 to S.Con.Res. 8

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

YEAs 53 NAYs 46 Not Voting 1


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0nos; 2ndamendment; armstrade; banglist; guncontrol; guns; rollcall; sadlibs; secondamendment; senate; treaty; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Seems like a good thing looking at the way the votes went with some Dem crossovers. Anyone know if there's a downside to it?
1 posted on 03/23/2013 4:02:05 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
A downside? Besides making J. Effin’ Kerry cry, none at all.
2 posted on 03/23/2013 4:09:24 AM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Let’s see - a vote to stay with the Constitution. That’s nice.


3 posted on 03/23/2013 4:13:47 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
46 voted no!!!!!!!
4 posted on 03/23/2013 4:17:53 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG
Sorry:

The downside was a 53-46 vote.

That's way too close for comfort.

It means that 46 of those sorry mother-lovers want to give your sovereignty away to the United Nations. That number may grow. That is the downside.

5 posted on 03/23/2013 4:18:39 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JPG

Downside was not the best word for it. What I’m asking is if the left already has an end run in place around the bill even before it was voted on.


6 posted on 03/23/2013 4:19:03 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Treasonous bastards!!!!


7 posted on 03/23/2013 4:22:17 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The left is always plotting and scheming but a 2/3 yes vote on this one is not very likely.


8 posted on 03/23/2013 4:23:40 AM PDT by JPG (Stay strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

NAYs -—46 All the Usual Ones... Here they are, Tea Party; Let’s fire them..

Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA)Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)


9 posted on 03/23/2013 4:32:45 AM PDT by Christie at the beach (I like Newt. Our nation's foundation is under attack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

This also chilled me to the bone.

46 people who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States are willing to hand over sovereignty.

46 people have made it clear that they are enemies of the United States.


10 posted on 03/23/2013 5:00:43 AM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

US Senate Votes
Violating Oath of Office is a Federal Crime

(what for and why they voted)
Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and. (forget anything after and.)

Vote Counts: YEAs 53 NAYs 46
Not Voting 1

Alphabetical by Violating Senator Name
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ... of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

GUILTY...
Fine, Fire, then lock their A$S up..

Just Saying,


11 posted on 03/23/2013 5:20:16 AM PDT by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Exactly. When was it ruled upon that a so-called treaty could be approved that usurped our sovereign and Constitutional rights?

This concept of multi-nationalism is being pushed by globalists and multi-national corporations and neocons because national sovereignty is more than an annoyance to those who see national borders as an annoyance and impediment to their agenda.


12 posted on 03/23/2013 5:25:36 AM PDT by apoliticalone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
46 people have made it clear that they are enemies of the United States.

And what are we doing about it?

(It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)

It's time to quit watering the Tree of Tyranny. If we won't even do that, we sure won't do anything really strenuous.

13 posted on 03/23/2013 5:55:54 AM PDT by HomeAtLast ( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

“...I) Reid (D-NV) R...”

Attention NRA! This is not a 2A supporter but a wolf is sheep’s clothes. Shout it out LaPierre!


14 posted on 03/23/2013 6:15:44 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (One "bitter clinger" praying for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone

Vienna Convention on Treaties.

signed by US in 1970.


15 posted on 03/23/2013 6:20:36 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The downside is that this “vote” is meaningless. It is theater, designed to give dems up for reelection some cover against attacks on their anti-2nd-amendment views. this is an amendment to the senate budget proposal that will NEVER be signed into law.


16 posted on 03/23/2013 6:27:07 AM PDT by Hugh the Scot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JPG
Last I heard The Senate can vote all they want but their vote alone can not change or remove the amendments to our constitution.

There is a process on changing our constitution.

The rest of the process seems to be missing.

17 posted on 03/23/2013 6:53:19 AM PDT by Joan Kerrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: riverss

Glad to see my CO participants voting the party line way, especially so soon after Chickenpooper signed the 2nd Amendment rights of Coloradoan patriots away this past Wednesday. I’m really starting to despise that entire side of the aisle.


18 posted on 03/23/2013 7:06:13 AM PDT by The FIGHTIN Illini (Wake up fellow Patriots before it's too late)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
What I’m asking is if the left already has an end run in place around the bill even before it was voted on.

Yes. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators.

19 posted on 03/23/2013 7:38:42 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: apoliticalone
When was it ruled upon that a so-called treaty could be approved that usurped our sovereign and Constitutional rights?

Try parsing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution without any "wishful thinking" blinders and you'll note that first comma before the phrase, "under the authority of the United States." It's a problem.

We have treaties on the books that wildly exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution yet not one has ever been thrown out.

20 posted on 03/23/2013 7:41:09 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

Not Voting - 1
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Was he present and not voting, or “indisposed”? He must be getting close to a hundred...


21 posted on 03/23/2013 8:48:52 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“es. A treaty can be legally ratified with 34 votes out of a quorum of 51 Senators. “

It won’t though. It will take 67 votes and they do not exist.


22 posted on 03/23/2013 9:23:52 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

I see the CT delegation is doing exactly as I expected.


23 posted on 03/23/2013 9:50:25 AM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: riverss

Well said. 46 Dems dumb enough to go on record and volunteering themselves to be arrested for treason.


24 posted on 03/23/2013 10:04:55 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

He was watching The Lawrence Welk Show.


25 posted on 03/23/2013 10:06:52 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?


26 posted on 03/23/2013 10:08:16 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Probably one he was a guest on.


27 posted on 03/23/2013 10:17:21 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

>”Treasonous bastards!!!!”<

Anyone recall the last time we Hung, or is it Hanged, Treasonous Bastards?


28 posted on 03/23/2013 10:21:02 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Compliance with Tyranny is Treason...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

Any Republican candidate (or PAC or issue advocate) can now run an honest TV ad that shows incontrovertible PROOF that his rat opponent (any of those listed) does not support the US Constitution. Let’s see how many have the guts to do so.


29 posted on 03/23/2013 10:35:11 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
It won’t though. It will take 67 votes and they do not exist.

I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can't figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Worse, according to international law the US has been respecting for over forty years, the government is committed to the terms of the treaty from the moment of the signature of any officer, including Kerry.

30 posted on 03/23/2013 10:54:05 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“I take it you think a master of parliamentary procedure like Harry Reid can’t figure out how to set up a vote against a GOP determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”

Yeh OK and the Russians are getting ready to invade NYC :-)


31 posted on 03/23/2013 10:55:52 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

“I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?”

No they cannot. No treaty trumps the Constitution.


32 posted on 03/23/2013 10:56:57 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

That’s what I thought. I’m sure the asshats will try anyway though.


33 posted on 03/23/2013 10:58:29 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

More voted yes for the Second Amendment than last time!

;-)


[51 Senate yeas in a similar vote previously, IIRC.]


34 posted on 03/23/2013 11:58:31 AM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Yeh OK and the Russians are getting ready to invade NYC :-)

Thank you Pollyanna.

I can cite a treaty that committed the entire United States economy and all of its lands to the potential for government control. It was ratified without record of a committee vote, or quorum by voice vote. The cover letter from the Secretary of State lied about its content. Don't believe it?

Of course, Hamilton lied about the treaty power in The Federalist #75, so in duplicity such affairs is hardly something new.

Don't believe it? Try me, but if you do, I'll expect a public retraction.

35 posted on 03/23/2013 12:03:53 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
"I understand it takes two-thirds present vote, but can they sign a treaty that nullifies any of the Bill of Rights?"

Hopefully, the following will be helpful.


"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty" (Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17).

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power
Justia.com
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html

Excerpt:
“As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated.”

TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

Treaties

Curtis W. Caine, MD
Hacienda Publishing

[Excerpt:]

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.



36 posted on 03/23/2013 12:07:08 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Thank you for the info and links.


37 posted on 03/23/2013 12:17:33 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Bookmark


38 posted on 03/23/2013 12:42:57 PM PDT by Faith65 (Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; apoliticalone
Vienna Convention on Treaties.
signed by US in 1970.

From US Dept. of State website:

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

No. The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.

Found here:

http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm

39 posted on 03/23/2013 1:01:29 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: familyop
TREATIES DO NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION

They don't supersede it, either.

Like the difference between "cession" and "session".

</net nanny>

40 posted on 03/23/2013 1:03:18 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

Treaty ratification requires a 2/3 present vote. This 46 vote is 21 short of the full Senate.


41 posted on 03/23/2013 1:32:39 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

Small comfort. Better keep arming up. Five more Senators are bound to be Blue in the next election.


42 posted on 03/23/2013 2:29:59 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult; All

The 46 Traitors:

NAYs -—46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091


43 posted on 03/23/2013 4:11:30 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“Supercede?” Some say that it goes back nearly 400 years as a misspelling and has become synonymous. I see “superceden” in Scot Middle English. I think I’ll let Jack McLamb (writer for the Family Guardian) slide on that one. Maybe he’s of more northern heritage than Latin-ish. —sometimes editor of net nannies.

[Little humor and mischief there. Thanks for the tip. ;-) ]


44 posted on 03/23/2013 4:43:13 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

You’re welcome. Firearms and ammunition are good tools, but maybe we should consider the old volume manufacturing and sales paradigm (that is, make more of the stuff to meet even future demand). There are many other useful things needed in small, widespread production, too, in my opinion: energy, other important tools, small scale food production in various climates, all).


45 posted on 03/23/2013 4:47:48 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The voting rules need to be changed to prevent both senators and congressmen from voting present, or abstaining from voting. Either yes or no, no in-between.


46 posted on 03/23/2013 5:07:50 PM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a gamer not because I choose to have no life, but because I choose to have many.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The dims voting for this were afraid of losing out to their voters who would hang them for getting rid of guns. Otherwise, they would have voted to support the UN. The dims own the senate. The fear factor of losing an election is the only reason these people supported it. Nothing else.


47 posted on 03/23/2013 5:12:43 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

they’re on record now, and the GOP will not let this go.

Who am I kidding, course they will the bunch of infiltrators who have a the letter R at the end of their name, the elitist estbalishment will do nothing because their own power nadmoney is more important or because they;re cowards who always run away when there is a fight with the left, media,


48 posted on 03/23/2013 5:44:33 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Treasonous bastards!!!!

AMEN BROTHER...!!

49 posted on 03/23/2013 6:13:19 PM PDT by unread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Treasonous bastards!!!!

AMEN BROTHER...!!

50 posted on 03/23/2013 6:20:13 PM PDT by unread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson