Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers
The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

Posted on 03/11/2010 8:25:03 AM PST by kyright

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens; artbell; article2section1; awgeez; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; birthright; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; constitution; eligibility; immigration; ineligible; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; ntsa; obama; tinfoilhat; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 321-333 next last
To: allmendream; All
There is no provision under U.S. law for any type of citizenship or any way of gaining citizenship other than being a “natural born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen”.

There is no third category of citizenship established in the Constitution or under U.S. statute law.

Actually, the Constitution does not define these terms.

The only terms listed are "citizen" and "natural born citizen". But, that does not mean that those are the ONLY types.

The Constitution also ONLY specifies Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

And, Blackstone [from which the Founding Fathers derived their understanding] defines four types of inhabitants within a nation.

1. Alien: a non-subject who owes allegiance to the sovreign and to whom the sovreign owes protection - so long as the alien is inhabited within England. Status and responsibilities of same cease when the alien leaves the realm.

2. Denizen: a subject born within the realm [or naturalized by legislation] having been granted all of the rights of a natural born subject - EXCEPT that of holding high office. This would include any child born with a dual allegiance.

3. Naturalized subject: an alien who has been named a subject by the legislature or the sovreign. He cannot inherit property, but his descendants can as long as they are natural born within the dominion.

4. Natural born subject: any child, regardless of parentage, being born within the dominion of the sovreign AND owing ONE AND ONLY ONE allegiance to that same sovreign.

241 posted on 03/12/2010 2:43:48 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

And here is the salient point made from all of your posting. His child was not a natural born citizen as to he was not completely subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States. Germany made a claim on him.

Germany passed a new dual citizenship law and as of January 1, 2000, those who were “born in Germany to non-German parents before February 2, 1990 have no claim to German citizenship.”

But Germany did make a claim on his citizenship. His child was under the allegiance of a foreign power. He could be subjected again to Germany just by them passing another statute because of the nature of his birth on foreign soil, their soil.

242 posted on 03/12/2010 2:50:50 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The difference beween Buchanan and Arthur was that Buchanans father was was naturalized *before* his birth and thus Buchanan was born to a citizen father. Arthur's father was not naturalized until *after* he was born, about 14 years after, and thus was not born to a citizen father.

The bottom line is that Section 301 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8USC/Section 1401) states that anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (meaning anyone other than a child of a foreign government’s representative with diplomatic immunity)is a person having US citizenship from the time of birth.

That section just repeats the language of the 14th amendment. But niether says they are Natural Born citizens, do they?

243 posted on 03/12/2010 2:54:04 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
If Mr. McCains father passed his USA citizenship to John McCain in Panama, then Mr Obama Sr. passed his Kenyan Citizenship to Obama Jr. in the USA.

Except that JM II did no such thing. JM III was born in the canal zone, in the Coco Solo naval base hospital. It was small, but it was there before a larger one was built in the '40s. Besides, under the "Law of Nations" those born while the parents are serving the country are reputed born in the country for citizenship, including natural born citizenship, purposes. This includes military and diplomats.

244 posted on 03/12/2010 3:00:27 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: edge919; All
You said they didn't say he was natural born. They did.

That passage does NOT mention Wong Kim Ark. It's background. They're explaining what was said in a 1607 court case followed immediately by what was said by an essayist, but when they get to the conclusion of the decision, they do NOT ... again, NOT ... call WKA a natural born citizen. Your dots don't connect. Sorry. Better luck next time.

Exactly ...

Those who hang their hats on WKA defining "natural born citizen" are pissing in the wind. The last paragraph of WKA EXPLICITLY states that WKA DID NOT define NBC status, but was decided SOLELY upon the basis of the 14th Amendment.

The references to Calvin's Case and Dicey, etc. were "background" - as you say.

However, if you read the relevant passages of both [I have], you will find that Calvin's Case stated that a NBC could have BUT ONE allegiance to a single, solitary sovreign.

Dicey references the British Nationality Act of 1730 [which was the controlling law in the late 1700's]. It states that children born beyond the sovreign's dominion to a natural born subject father are natural born subjects themselves

. A child given NBC status by two different countries DOES NOT fit with Calvin and Dicey. A dual citizen is wholly incompatible with being a NBC.

My feeling as to WKA is that Justice Gray would have wanted to declare WKA as a NBC - because of the way he wrote about the background of the opinion. He even distorted and lied about some of the source background material in his writing.

I think that SCOTUS "split the baby" on this one - declaring WKA to be a citizen based on the 14th Amendment, but stopping short of declaring him a NBC. The reason is that Gray WOULD NOT have gotten a majority and WKA would have been denied - if Gray had insisted on declaring WKA a NBC.

245 posted on 03/12/2010 3:10:11 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56; allmendream; All
And, Blackstone [from which the Founding Fathers derived their understanding] defines four types of inhabitants within a nation

This is utterly FALSE! The framers did NOT use Blackstone, they went further back as Blackstone's works only include that of the feudal times.

Justice James Wilson commentaries on law, 1791:

By Sir \William Blackstone, from whose Commentaries, a performance in many respects highly valuable, the elements of a foreign law education would probably be borrowed—by Sir William Blackstone,. this great and fundamental principle is treated as a political chimera, existing only in the minds of some theorists-; but, in practice, inconsistent with the dispensation of any government upon earth...

As I have mentioned Sir William Blackstone, let me speak of him explicitly as it becomes me. I cannot consider him as a zealous friend of republicanism. One of his survivers or successours in office has characterized him by the appellation of an antirepublican lawyer. On the subject of government, I think I can plainly discover his jealousies and his attachments.

For his jealousies, an easy and natural account may be given. In England, only one specimen of a commonwealth has been exhibited to publick examination ; and that specimen was, indeed, an unfavourable one. On trial, it was found to be unsound and unsatisfactory. It is not very surprising that an English lawyer, with an example so inauspicious before his eyes, should feel a degree of aversion, latent, yet strong* to a republican government...

As author of the Commentaries, he possessed uncommon merit. His manner is clear and methodical; his sentiments—I speak of them generally—are judicious and solid ; his language is elegant and pure. In publick law, however, he should be consulted with a cautious prudence. But, even in publick law, his principles, when they are not proper objects of imitation, will furnish excellent materials of contrast. On every account, therefore, he should be read and studied. He deserves to be much admired ; but he ought not to be implicitly followed.

Now this coming from the one who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the constitution and it was Wilson who physically took the decisions of the convention & penned the Constitution, it was only natural hew would be one of the 1st Supreme Court justices and well as the 1st one to write 3 volumes on the laws that were adopted by the US. he also has some great works on patriotism.

246 posted on 03/12/2010 3:10:49 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
This includes military and diplomats.

What I find as peculiar, or not so depending how you look at it, is that The New York and The Los Angeles Times wrote articles along with papers written by professors from universities in Michigan and Arizona claiming that McCain was not a natural born citizen. I didn't hear anything at the time from the liberals argue that they differed.

247 posted on 03/12/2010 3:14:54 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
And here is the salient point made from all of your posting. His child was not a natural born citizen as to he was not completely subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States. Germany made a claim on him.

Germany passed a new dual citizenship law and as of January 1, 2000, those who were “born in Germany to non-German parents before February 2, 1990 have no claim to German citizenship.”

But Germany did make a claim on his citizenship. His child was under the allegiance of a foreign power. He could be subjected again to Germany just by them passing another statute because of the nature of his birth on foreign soil, their soil.


However under US law, the son has born citizenship in the United States by virtue of “jus sanguinis” rather than “jus soli” (place of birth).
The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.

If the son does not have naturalization papers, he is a born citizen of the United States.


248 posted on 03/12/2010 3:20:22 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I don’t think the Ark case declared him as not a natural born citizen. Neither did it declare to be a natural born citizen! It admitted there is some uncertainty about it, but in either case he was definitely a citizen.

The Ark case did not lay down definitive guidelines about what constitutes a natural born citizen since that was not the question; his basic citizenship was. So the Supreme Court (rightly so) acknowledged the ambiguity about the natural-born state and then set it aside and dealt with the root issue.

I may be wrong, but I’ve looked over the Ark case several times and I see nowhere where the Court stated he either was or he wasn’t a natural born citizen.

Not to mention the parentage situation for Wong was different than that of Barack Obama. For Wong, both parents were immigrants; for Obama, his mother was a citizen. There is a huge difference right there.

So, while the Ark case is interesting, I don’t think it’s the smoking gun that either side wishes it to be.


249 posted on 03/12/2010 3:22:59 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Technically, the law in effect when Obama was born didn’t prevent minors from renouncing their U.S. citizenship.

Sure, but we have no record that ever happened. Renouncing your citizenship is a well-defined process, and there is no record that ever happened.

The Wong Kim Ark decision seems to suggest that citizenship can definitely be influenced by another person.

Actually, I would argue it ELIMINATED that ability! Mr. Wong was found to be a citizen even though his parents had taken him outside the US. He was still a citizen, and could not be barred entry to the US. So it was influenced only from the standpoint that the US Government was illegally trying to remove his citizenship.

250 posted on 03/12/2010 3:26:17 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I’ll keep it simple: since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, there are two and only two categories of US citizenship: born citizenship and naturalized citizenship.
Born citizenship can be acquired either by inheritance: “jus sanguinis” or by being born in the U.S., “jus soli.”
Born citizens can be president; naturalized citizens cannot be president.


251 posted on 03/12/2010 3:28:41 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: patlin
So you are telling me that after reading ALL those 3 Acts(1790(repealed), 1795, 1798(amended the 1795)) passed in the 1st 10 years following the ratification, you gained all the knowledge you needed to still conclude that that dual citizenship existed, was not an issue and was protected by law?

Correct. Dual citizenship isn't mentioned in those acts, and is irrelevant because - as I've stated all along - the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. We don't care what another nation thinks about a person's citizenship; we only care what we think about it.

What if Hugo Chavez declared you to be a citizen of Venezuela; should you now lose your natural-born status? That is, in fact, what you are arguing.

You cite a law, based on assumptions of whom was in Congress at the time, yet you fail to study the history of citizenship & the many origins of the many definitions of citizen.

We have English Common Law and Vattel, and per subsequent Supreme Court decisions both were influential on our legal system. You cannot ignore either.

And we have the writings and collective actions of the Founders to gauge their intent. Is not a collective action of the Founders something to be considered? I argue that it does carry weight and should be considered as a good indication about their meaning; you think otherwise. Why would you exclude this?

The rationale of the DRONE continues to stymie the mind.

Insults weaken your argument; they are the retreat of the small mind.

252 posted on 03/12/2010 3:30:32 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Please see the underlined part of your own image: Natural allegiance ... cannot be forfeited, canceled or altered by any change of time, place or circumstance.

I would say that is pretty conclusive and explicit that once you have your status of natural born, you cannot lose it by any act beyond direct renunciation (which, of course, was always allowed).

Your own image supports my point quite nicely!

253 posted on 03/12/2010 3:34:30 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.

Being a citizen separated from than naturalization process is not always a natural born citizen; however, being a birth of both jus soli and jus sanguinis certainly does. Moreover to my post from above, the father was told when he registered the birth of his son with the US embassy that he could not run for president of the United States. The State Department certainly did not believe that his son was a natural born citizen.

254 posted on 03/12/2010 3:38:20 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: patlin
And, Blackstone [from which the Founding Fathers derived their understanding] defines four types of inhabitants within a nation.

This is utterly FALSE! The framers did NOT use Blackstone, they went further back as Blackstone's works only include that of the feudal times.

I did not write that very well, did I?

Most people who believe that Obama is natural born based it on Blackstone.

I was pointing out that Blackstone defined more than two types of subjects - not just the two that the poster I replied to listed.

Actually, the Founding Fathers borrowed relied heavily from many sources. English Common Law, Grotius, Vattel, and English jurisprudence, etc. As many of them were lawyers trained in English Law, I believe that they based mostly on the English legislation that was in effect at the time.

As for definition of natural born subject [citizen], they would most certainly looked to Calvin's Case [1607] - the seminal case upon which the term "natural born subject" was based.

They would have also looked to exceptions and modifications that had taken place after 1607. That would be the British Nationality Act of 1730, which extended natural born subject status to children [born out of the sovreign's dominion] of fathers who were themselves natural born subjects.

255 posted on 03/12/2010 3:53:52 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; All

Please see the underlined part of your own image: Natural allegiance ... cannot be forfeited, canceled or altered by any change of time, place or circumstance.

Your own image supports my point quite nicely!

Then your point must be that Obama owes perpetual loyalty and allegiance as the son of a British subject. He owes "service to two masters" and is therefore ineligible to have ever served as the POTUS as we can never be sure which master Obama serves.

LOL — just like most After-Birthers who lean on Common Law and Blackstone to make their point, you're attempting to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, it doesn't work that way ... this isn't a buffet.

If you take a slice of Blackstone, you must eat the whole damn thing!:


“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


256 posted on 03/12/2010 4:27:50 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Was Obama born in a British territory? If not, then he has no natural allegiance per Blackstone.


257 posted on 03/12/2010 4:55:17 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: kyright

How about just eligibilitiers?

That’s what most people are, and it can’t be painted by Alinskyites as somehow extremist or kooky.


258 posted on 03/12/2010 5:20:14 PM PST by reasonisfaith (Hey you noble leftists. You can't be honest about your agenda because you're not confident in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; All

It does not matter where Obama was born. It does not matter that he did not choose to have a father as a British subject. Allegiance is established at birth — you cannot protect yourself as an infant or child.

The British Realm was spread to all four corners of the world. Protection by the King offered regardless of location. Furthermore, common law was suited for this international use, hence why it was also used by the Colonists before the Revolution, and elsewhere after the Revolution.

But, I'll let Blackstone explain it:

As therefore the prince is always under a constant tie to protect his natural-born subjects, at all times and in all countries, for this reason their allegiance due to him is equally universal and permanent.

259 posted on 03/12/2010 5:24:36 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; All
The one written by Lord Coke in Calvin’s case.

From Wong Kim Ark....

“His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”

In Post #256 it was stated that if you want a slice - then ya gotta eat the whole damn cake.

DON'T CHERRY-PICK QUOTES FROM A DOCUMENT WITHOUT COMPLETELY READING THE SOURCE THAT WAS REFERENCED !!!

Justice Gray in WKA cited Calvin's Case (1608) as the relevant English Common Law. BUT, he bastardized and even lied about what Calvin's Case REALLY stated. You have to READ Calvin's Case to get the FULL meaning of the decision.

FYI: In Calvin's Case, it was claimed that Calvin WAS NOT a natural born subject and, thus could not inherit, since he was born in Scotland. The Court disagreed since Calvin was born in Scotland AFTER James I the first had united the kingdoms. That is, he was born within the sovreign's dominion AND with allegiance to that ONE same sovreign. Calvin was ruled a natural born subject.

And Calvin's Case stated the following:

" ... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.

4. It followeth next in course to set down the reasons wherefore an alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons. 1. The secrets of the realm might thereby be discovered. 2. The revenues of the realm (the sinews of war, and ornament of peace,) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born. 3. It should tend to the destruction of the realm. Which three reasons do appear in the statute of 2 H. 5. cap and 4 H. 5. cap ultimo. But it may be demanded, wherein doth that destruction consist; whereunto it is answered; first, it tends to destruction tempore belli; for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the realm, and be ready to set fire on the commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil's Second Book of his Aneid, where a very few men in the heart of the city did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years. Secondly tempore pacis for so might many aliens born get a great part of the inheritance and freehold of the realm, whereof there should follow a failure of justice (the supporter of the commonwealth) for that aliens born cannot be returned of juries (a) for the trial of issues between the King and the subject, or between subject and subject. And for this purpose, and many other, (see a charter worthy of observation) of King Ed. 3. written to Pope Clement, datum apud Westm 26. die Sept. ann regni nostri Franciæ 4 regni vero Angliæ 17 ...

... Now when the whole was under the actual and real ligeance and obedience of one King, were any that were born in any of those several and distinct kingdoms aliens one to another? Certainly they being born under the obedience of one King and sovereign were all natural-born subjects, and capable of and inheritable unto any lands in any of the said kingdoms.

2. Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience due by the law of nature to one sovereign are natural-born subjects: but Calvin was born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the law of nature to one sovereign; ergo, he is a natural-born subject."

260 posted on 03/12/2010 5:29:14 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 321-333 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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