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

Skip to comments.

Joint Chiefs Chairman: ‘We Can Figure Out Privacy’ for Young Ladies in Frontline Combat,
CNSNews ^

Posted on 01/26/2013 9:26:55 AM PST by chessplayer

(CNSNews.com) - Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that the U.S. military could figure out ways to preserve the privacy of young ladies serving in frontline combat units, including special forces combat units such as the Navy Seals and the U.S. Army’s Delta Force.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhodod; dempsey; jointchiefs; martindempsey; privacy; usmilitary; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 next last
To: mrsmel

“... this smoke about women in combat..”

I can see clear as a picture what will happen. The media will do “fluff” pieces about Tiffani or Amber being a soldier.. how they saved the good guys, captured the bad guys etc... The interviews will be full of lies. See, look at little Tiffani, no bigger than a gnat, and she saved all the men around her. Therefore, all the little girls in America can do the same thing. What will NEVER be shown is when Tiffani is captured and what happens to her or how so many of her male counterparts die trying to save her butt. Reality doesn’t fit the agenda.


51 posted on 01/26/2013 10:36:28 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

We not only deserve it, we’re getting it. The worst hasn’t even begun to be seen.


52 posted on 01/26/2013 10:38:20 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
How many times were you referred to by officers and NCO'S as "young gentlemen"?

Never. Although a group of officers is addressed as "Gentlemen" without the "young" in front of it.

53 posted on 01/26/2013 10:38:27 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

They don’t need any privacy since everyone is equal now!


54 posted on 01/26/2013 10:41:28 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

What is happening is that we are witnessing the dismantling of the mighty American war machine. With all of this nonsense happening now, there would had been no way our boys would have beaten the Insurgents in Fallujah and Ramadi.


55 posted on 01/26/2013 10:43:30 AM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Now that women are allowed in combat positions, they must be forced to register with selective service at age 18.


56 posted on 01/26/2013 10:44:02 AM PST by axxmann (If McCain is conservative then I'm a freakin' anarchist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JHL; River Hawk
It's all about the officer promotions ~ none of the other issues matter. They want a way for some of these ol'gals to get time in an Infantry battalion headquarters unit ~ maybe as the S2 ~ and then 20 years later get favorable consideration for General.

It's a corrupt practice but it certainly tells you that Piñata is still a capable guy, or at least handy with the viagra. What do they call themselves, 'eye-talion stallions'?

57 posted on 01/26/2013 10:45:15 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Both clintbilly and barry have ensured that nobody but Perfumed Princes get promoted in their military.

Now, the Perfumed Prince speaks out, while licking barry’s slippers.


58 posted on 01/26/2013 10:46:13 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Pure bullshit

We ALL know whats gonna happen... the women will merely become c*m dumps.

Let`s not f**k around and be real here.


59 posted on 01/26/2013 10:47:09 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I’m a woman, and I agree with you. The feminisation of society, politics, education, heck, even debate, has been nothing but negative, and the hypocritical feminists have had it both ways the whole time-they want to be “equal” with men, but they want “female privilege” when it comes to reproductive rights, combat, etc. No crying in baseball? Heck, some females cry in the boardroom! If women aren’t prepared to pay the same price that men are expected to pay for their “rights”, then it’s not “rights” they want, but “privileges”. And that is exactly the case.


60 posted on 01/26/2013 10:47:33 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Wonder if any of the recent “changes” in military leadership had anything to do with this about to come down the pike?


61 posted on 01/26/2013 10:48:39 AM PST by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

I remember being addressed with the adjectives starting with “you piece of” or “you pile of”. When I was addressed simply by my last name I could feel the love.


62 posted on 01/26/2013 10:50:36 AM PST by Starstruck (If I were a criminal I would be for gun control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
There was this retired former female AF pilot on who was literally reducing military service to a jobs program where promotion opportunities were far more important than any possible mission.

She, of course, is so totally sociopathic she probably couldn't get promoted but she did do pilot stuff and got shot.

That, BTW, did not make her more intelligent or knowledgeable ~ she's lucky she didn't get shot twice more.

63 posted on 01/26/2013 10:51:13 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Headline?

Won't be “disrespectful of the Islamic religion”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Plans For Women in Combat
To ensure “cultural sensitivity” women will be required to wear burkas

64 posted on 01/26/2013 10:54:14 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

Exactly. If they’re not blowing smoke and truly plan to put females in frontline combat, there will be more “stories” of the kind they will suppress, than of the “heroic Tiffani” kind. They think the male soldiers get PTSD now? Just imagine the trauma they’ll have after seeing their fellow “soldiers” gang-raped, used, then killed.


65 posted on 01/26/2013 10:57:52 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Time to form an all male new Confederate Army. Fags need not apply.

Hell yes sign me up,My wife will be the medical Nurse Practitioner and cook

66 posted on 01/26/2013 11:00:27 AM PST by piroque ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“Privacy” for SEALs in combat????

I gotta laugh!

“You need to change a Tampon, Lt? There’s no trees? How ‘bout the rest of the team just looks away...”

How silly ARE our 4-stars these days?
Like. OMG.


67 posted on 01/26/2013 11:00:38 AM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

Thanks, it’s good to hear that some women are still sensible about this stuff. When I tell most women my opinions like that, they look at me like I’m crazy.


68 posted on 01/26/2013 11:07:35 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I saw her... on Hannity... a chip the size of Manhattan on her shoulder. "Better not p*ss me off" look on her face.

The guy on who was supposed to be arguing the counterpoint spent so much time qualifying himself and apologizing that he never did manage a cogent argument. An utter fail, even Hannity had to cut him off.

69 posted on 01/26/2013 11:08:29 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

es about Tiffani or Amber being a soldier.. how they saved the good guys, captured the bad guys etc... The interviews will be full of lies. See, look at little Tiffani, no bigger than a gnat, and she saved all the men around her.


Ever watch the Sci-Fi channel movies? Not the old ones but the new ones. The women in those movies can beat the crap out of their weight in men,,,all at the same time.


70 posted on 01/26/2013 11:11:19 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi

> Maybe the goal is to destroy the protective instinct in the male because if you lose it then you will also have a diminished will to protect in general...as in protect your country, your family, your culture, your values.

There may be some validity to that. Good point.


71 posted on 01/26/2013 11:16:59 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Supplies needed for front lines...


72 posted on 01/26/2013 11:22:11 AM PST by Flick Lives (We're going to be just like the old Soviet Union, but with free cell phones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

Any nation that will send it’s women to fight on the front lines is a dead nation.

...the other night I saw a female officer on O’reilly debating this topic...against a guy who spent three quarters of his limited time telling us how much he admired said female officer...she made the point that women’s standards would be no more lessened than for older and weaker males...and BO and his other guest said nothing...I wish someone would have said this to her: OK, let’s say you are a military advisor for, say, Alexander the Great, and you say to him “Prior to going into battle agaisnt a foe vowing destruction upon you, you should infuse your finest fighting men with older, weaker men, in order that opportunity for glory falls equally on all” ...I think he would have had her killed.
...Yet that’s essentially exactly what she argued for...without the slightest indication that she realized the idiocy of that argument...and neither did her debate ‘opponent’, who was too busy telling us how wonderful women are, so worried was he about seeming a bully...


73 posted on 01/26/2013 11:22:21 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Fact of the matter is that in other nations women have been in combat. Israel and the Old Soviet Union certainly come to mind and the Soviets had women in the front lines during W.W. II.
Now as to what privacy these women have had and/or have in other nations I don't know.

I think the problem here stems from our own culture and expectations and the way our Army and Navy are run to begin with.

I have reservations on just how women will work out in combat situations. If our recent experience is any indication, especially the co-ed situation in the Navy with the accusations of over the top sexual encounters not to mention pregnancies, I really don't see how this can work.

Anyone remember Demi Moore's film of several years ago “G I Jane”. What a movie for Political Correctness, little ahead of it's time but now here we are.

Now the question is when will we have women in the SEALS???

74 posted on 01/26/2013 11:22:39 AM PST by Captain Peter Blood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.”

Incredible. I was watching a WWII documentary on the war on the Eastern Front; an older German doctor who had served there as a young man was describing how he had to instruct the soldiers to open the rear seam on their trousers so they could defecate; otherwise they would absolutely be frostbitten.


75 posted on 01/26/2013 11:31:42 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
It is the same agenda that drives all these "social reforms"--the Marxist project requires the atomization of society into a homogeneous undifferentiated mass of protoplasm--drones and worker ants. That requires the destruction of all intermediary social structures.

A key target of the Marxists has always been the structure of the nuclear family. To destroy the family they have adopted several strategies, but one is to dissolve the boundaries between the sexes, thereby weakening the bonds of marriage. When the roles of men and women are the same, marriage is no longer meningful.

Once we had a nation in which the men did the fighting and the women kept the home fires burning. No more.

76 posted on 01/26/2013 11:32:44 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Ever watch the Sci-Fi channel movies? Not the old ones but the new ones. The women in those movies can beat the crap out of their weight in men,,,all at the same time.

...the sci-fi channel seems especially addicted to that sort of nonsense...it irks the you know what out of me...almost as much as the TV commercials that without fail depict fathers and husbands as utter chimps, wimps, and moral and intellectual failures...one particular Allstate auto insurance ad makes me want to kick the screen in, the one where wifey glares at her hubby and intones ‘Silence’ in the announcer’s voice, I rave and irritate my own wife when it comes on, which is quite often...


77 posted on 01/26/2013 11:33:45 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

“Just look at who they’re trying to entice into the military-women, racial minorities, sodomites-the demographics who most support the left, and have been least represented at the sharp end in combat. While at the same time making it an uncomfortable fit for patriotic white males.”

While I would put nothing past this government or the liberal agenda, I believe it has a lot more to do with redistribution of wealth (workfare) while basically eliminating the large standing professional army (which has been shrinking for years). The military has often served as an entry point to the middle class for poor people of all shapes, sizes, and colors, and this is simply directing those efforts towards the demographics to which you refer. I don’t think there is any intention of using them as real soldiers; attempts to do so to date have been disastrous.


78 posted on 01/26/2013 11:37:06 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

Didn’t the men still do better in sneakers?


79 posted on 01/26/2013 11:43:13 AM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

“What will NEVER be shown is when Tiffani is captured and what happens to her or how so many of her male counterparts die trying to save her butt. Reality doesn’t fit the agenda.”

Yeah; remember the haze surrounding the capture & treatment of Pvt. Lynch? Didn’t fit an agenda (either that she couldn’t fight, or what her captors proceeded to do).


80 posted on 01/26/2013 11:48:13 AM PST by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

or “equality”


81 posted on 01/26/2013 11:52:18 AM PST by hulagirl (Mother Theresa was right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
In another thread, on yesterday, I offered this comment:

The yet more compelling argument is this. It is the Chivalric duty for young men to protect the women & children, which creates the concept that the measure of a Man is in at least a significant part defined by his acceptance of that duty. It is that sense of defined manhood that elicits the "above & beyond" concept, which brings out that something extra, which can turn the tide of battles & win wars.

It is also in that traditional sense of sexually defined roles that brings out the best in young women, even as its repudiation undermines the social fabric.

See Feminist Delusion, for an analysis of the absurdity of the Feminist denial of the importance of traditional sex roles. In the real world, there is nothing more important to the normal individual than his or her sex; after all the future of all advanced forms of life, is derived from clear sex roles.

Query: Does anyone believe that further confusing the traditional sense of male duty, purpose & moral responsibility, makes it more or less likely that we will continue to see acts of murderous rage from young males who have no sense of duty, purpose & moral responsibility? George Washington--in urging the Swiss system of armed youth in their own homes--elaborated on the benefits to those youth, themselves, in the sense of moral responsibility & purpose that such a system would develop.

Isn't it just possible that General Washington had a better understanding of male psychology than the toadies in the Obama Administration? Or do I exaggerate basic cause & effect? Does Switzerland have a lower crime rate than Obamanist strongholds, such as Chicago & San Fransisco?

Will no one, today, acknowledge what has been understood by normal people throughout human history?

William Flax

82 posted on 01/26/2013 11:52:18 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
Your comments are apt. In every area of ordinary concern, we have been Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose. The social infra-structure has been crippled, while the onslaught continues, always in the same direction.

William Flax

83 posted on 01/26/2013 11:58:05 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

No special treatment for women. They get to shower, brush their teeth, wash, blow dry, eat, sleep, go to the head with NO PRIVACY. They sleep in open bay barracks and they do the same PT as the men. No dual tracks and no waivers based on gender. Let the macho girls play in the major leagues by proving themselves as capable (or not). When we get into combat operations, send the girls in first. After all, they’re the new super soldiers along with the LGBT groupies. The rest of the folks who know what they’re doing will get to watch the slaughter instead of being part of it.


84 posted on 01/26/2013 12:04:42 PM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

This disgraceful chairman is just as bad as the last one who approved open homosexuals in foxholes.

Will the foxholes now be segregated by homosexuals, women and straight me? Can we negotiate something with the Taliban forces before they attack?


85 posted on 01/26/2013 12:07:07 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

This disgraceful chairman is just as bad as the last one who approved open homosexuals in foxholes.

Will the foxholes now be segregated by homosexuals, women and straight men? Can we negotiate something with the Taliban forces before they attack


86 posted on 01/26/2013 12:08:49 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Way back in the day, I was part of a team on TDY from Japan which was carrying out an operation from an SF camp near Cambodia. I had served four years in the USAF, and had never seen such appalling conditions, but I got acclimated eventually. I just cannot picture a female, no matter how tough, living like that. For the record, I was NOT in the SF.


87 posted on 01/26/2013 12:11:36 PM PST by Ax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: allendale

I agree, Dempsey and the rest of the JCS are bassically Obama Kool-Aid drinkers. This is just the beginning, we can expect more “enlightened leadership” from these guys as they find new and creative ways to destroy morale, capabilities readiness. However, we will be very politically correct, that is now the most important thing.


88 posted on 01/26/2013 12:14:27 PM PST by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Ageism?


89 posted on 01/26/2013 12:15:30 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I have news for the Joint Chiefs. Any woman on the combat front lines is no lady.


90 posted on 01/26/2013 12:22:11 PM PST by lwoodham (I am Andrew Breitbart. Don't doubt me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I disagree with the good general. For frontline combat units, we should be putting next to no effort into giving soldiers privacy. If they can handle seeing their buddies blown to bits, I think they can handle seeing the opposite sex in compromising positions.


91 posted on 01/26/2013 12:41:15 PM PST by Meshakhad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phormer phrog phlyer

Dempsey is the un-American moron who took the unprecedented step, as a general, to call a private citizen, a civilian (Terry Jones), and try to intimidate him (by implication) into backing down on his threat to burn a Koran. I don’t remember the outcome, but I hope Mr Jones didn’t back down. It’s not so much that I support burning the Koran (though it doesn’t bother me) as that a general of the US military, the very organisation devoted to defending our freedom and rights, tried to use the power of his rank to stop a citizen from exercising those very rights.

He is also the moron behind the persecution of a decorated soldier (Army Lt Colonel Dooley) for teaching facts about Islam to his classes.


92 posted on 01/26/2013 12:46:00 PM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly

No longer true.

LOTS of women work towards diminishing the natural male instinct to protect the female.

As we saw by the several men in the Aurora theater who died protecting their women, the instinct is not dead.

93 posted on 01/26/2013 1:07:05 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
101st, Gulf War I: HHC. Several females.

Tactical showers built with slats for sides and open areas upper and lower -- so you can see around you when showering. . .in the field, in combat, never let your guard down.

Females complained that the men watched them shower. . .so. . .females got their own shower built, complete with full walls so no one can see then. . .and they couldn't see outside either. Tactically unsound and dangerous, but hey. . at least they had privacy.

Field latrines, half-50-gal drum with waist-high sides around the “toilets.” Must have half-walls because in a combat environment must be able to see around you even when sitting dow doing your business. . you are vulnerable. . .can't let your guard down. . . .unless you are a female.

Females complained and they had their own $h^^ers built, completely enclosed, of course, so the men couldn't watch them.

So, men had no privacy but women were afforded all the privacy they wanted. . .regardless of the tactical requirement to be alert, aware and able to respond,

No sir, standards and privacy will not be compromised, no sir (sarc/)

“Weak Link” book by Brian Mitchell is an excellent read to discover just how much combat standards have been lowered already. . .

94 posted on 01/26/2013 1:10:50 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Well, separate but equal. See?


95 posted on 01/26/2013 1:12:04 PM PST by OKSooner ("The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." - Revelation 22:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

Please see Post 94. . .I’m right there with you.


96 posted on 01/26/2013 1:12:21 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BCW
They didn’t have a problem in Starship Troopers - everyone took showers together...I’m sure GI Joe would love GI Jane coming in...of course, depends on what Jane looks like...I wonder how the fraternization rule would work at that point?

That was the idiot movie, not the book where the Mobile Infantry was all-male, despite their powered armor that would in actuality largely eliminate the physical reasons men outperform women.

Women were in the military, but not the infantry.

97 posted on 01/26/2013 1:12:48 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Didn't see Bill's show, but if the female was who I think it was, McSally, here are some facts. McSally was a loser (I am a former A-10 pilot and know her fairly well).

She complained about having to wear a burka when off base in Kuwait/Saudi. Military leadership said, sorry, but you gotta play by their rules when you are in their country. McSally said, “No!” it's all about me!” and took her complaint to the IG instead of up the chain.

Media got wind of it. . .likely from McSally and her feminist cronies.

Thing is, we HAVE NO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Saudi and Kuwait that allows us the right to be exempt from local rules/laws. So, McSally fussed about not having her “rights” while in a country where she has no rights, and then she fussed publicly and cast the military as being insensitive and oppressive. . .she was too stoopid to understand the SOFA limitation and the fact the military had no choice!!

She was coddled for political reasons and promoted to colonel just to keep her and her lezbo cronies quiet.

She is a disgusting attention wh0r3, making it all about her and not the mission.

She is not respected.

98 posted on 01/26/2013 1:22:50 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I can’t see how this can last. The first time a female troop is captured and publicly tortured America will want them out.


99 posted on 01/26/2013 1:27:26 PM PST by YoungBlackRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I think an aspect of this isn’t being discussed much.

Traditionally, intentionally killing women and children was held to be the ultimate dishonor for soldiers. This was because women and children were by definition noncombatants.

Now women are equally potential combatants as men, and the rationale for excluding them as targets just went away. Hopefully, kids will still be off the list.


100 posted on 01/26/2013 1:27:42 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-140 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