Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can FreeRepublic be salvaged? (Birth Cerificate)
none ^ | today | palmer

Posted on 11/15/2008 6:48:02 PM PST by palmer

It's apparent that a combination of fervent believers and a small number of psychopaths and/or infiltrators have dominated the birth certificate discussion. The early evidence was in their favor and everyone should have been skeptical of the low res images on Kos, smears and politifact. The new evidence is not and is not being addressed objectively.

The Certificate

There are photos at FactCheck like the one linked above ( http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg) To the credit of the believers there are a variety of photos at Factcheck that don't all look like the same artifact. Also we know that Factcheck is not an unbiased organization and, even if they are completely innocent, they would believe any lie or forgery given to them by the Obama camp.

But photo #5 (and some of the others) is a genuine photograph of an artifact. It was not created in photoshop. That doesn't mean photoshop was not involved. A plausible set of steps is
1. Scan a real COLB including the border
2. Import into photoshop and change the text to Obama's text
3. Print the result onto the cross hatched paper (could be forged separately)
4. Obtain a embossing seal and apply it to the printout 5. Fold it as if it came from an envelope and display it to the factcheck photographer.

Another plausible scenario is someone in the Hawaii office did all the forging but on the official equipment and using the official seal. Another possibility is someone stole a seal and sold it to a forger. It is certainly possible for a forger to make a seal using the right equipment (probably a laser etcher).

Trip to Kenya

There's no reasonable explanation for why Obama's parents went to Kenya and a good reason they would not: expense. There's no evidence that they went to Kenya except some allegations of testimony. Lawyers like Berg have not been able to present their testimony in court so it can be evaluated. But a recording of a person who allegedly Obama's grandmother saying she was present at his birth in Kenya is not evidence of anything except that someone made a recording of someone saying something.

The Kenya trip meme seemed to turn into an established fact in early July when proposed by null and void and properly ridiculed. Even into November null and void can only repeat her hypothesis (a honeymoon) apparently unwilling or unable to embellish it further.

The Infiltrators

Polarik is an obvious candidate. His rantings on his blog are full of flowery rhetoric against Obama (some is pretty well written) accompanied by the most pathetic attempts at explanations that I have seen in this case. How anyone can mistake him for an expert is beyond me. Using his "analysis" is being used for any legal case is the kiss of death.

Polarik surrounds himself with a number of true believers and useful idiots. The useful idiots are the ones who validate or praise his analysis while obviously not knowing anything about it. The true believers have convinced themselves that Obama was not born in Honolulu and are unable to evaluate the evidence objectively.

In their favor, the true believers have established that Obama has potential Indonesian citizenship (courtesy of Soetoro) as well as potential Kenyan citizenship (courtesy of Obama Sr). These are true regardless of where Obama was born. For the former the Kenyan citizenship would have to be activated by Obama. For the latter, Soetoro would have had to apply to make Obama an Indonesian citizen, it does not happen automatically via adoption.

The bottom line for Polarik is he has yet to address the certificate linked above. He has promised to do this for weeks now and is instead disseminating and repeating his various diatribes against Obama. My guess based on his past behavior is that he will release a rehash of the evidence against the old scan (Kos, smears, politifact) with a bit of new verbiage against the factcheck photos. He will properly point out some oddities in some of the photos while ignoring the obvious salient features in the decent photos such as number 5.

He and I have already argued about the seal (embossing) in number 5 and he claims it is a perfect circle (therefore forged). I showed that it wasn't http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq51/palmer2/circle.jpg and he replied with a very similar result except he used some edge detection first. He obviously just fools with some tools, but doesn't obtain any useful results. When it comes to image analysis he is a dabbler, not an expert.

With cover from his defenders he establishes a "sensitive" personality claiming that he is being ruthlessly attacked. He says that as a result he will stop posting on the certificate issue when he is done with his final writeup. I don't know if that's a real sensitivity or faked, but even if it is faked there are thousands more that will step into his shoes if he disappears.

The End

In the end however, the postings of Polarik are just spam. There were always brouhahas like this on FR and always will be. We survived them before and can survive again. The fact that Polarik's defenders jump on any reasonable poster asking a few skeptical questions is not going to make a big difference to those posters. The fact that 6000 post threads can be constructed without any reasonable explanation of why Obama's parents went to Kenya and without any reasonable analysis of the factcheck photos means lots of people wasted lots of time, but at least it was concentrated in one thread.

That thread and others contain useful nuggets about other Obama problems. There are alternative threads that speak to real evidence although some of those get beaten down by the Polarik army. Polarik's followers also use Freepmail to spread gossip about posters like myself and allegedly (according to them) posted about me on another forum.

That is all good. The more publicity I get on this particular issue, the better. But I remain concerned that FreeRepublic will have the appearance of a conspiracy site because only a rather intensive conspiracy could produce the evidence photographed by Factcheck.

I am also concerned that Factcheck and others might be deliberately planting poor quality evidence in an attempt to hook in the Polariks of the world and their followers. That would not necessarily require a conspiracy although I admit it has the flavor of one. It is to the liberal opposition's benefit to keep as many people on false trails as possible not just to waste their time but to portray them as unhinged. That result was detrimental in the last election and will be detrimental in 2010 and 2012.

IMO of course.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: bc; birthcertificate; certifigate; justreleasethebc; nov; obama; obamagate; obamatransitionfile; proveyouareeligible
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 481-493 next last
To: RummyChick

Now, this is strange. This form should not exist as it appears.


281 posted on 11/15/2008 10:04:42 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

But there was a form in 1980. Doesn’t anyone have an image of it?


282 posted on 11/15/2008 10:05:29 PM PST by palmer (Some third party malcontents don't like Palin because she is a true conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Yeah, factcheck is a sure unbiased unfallable organization (run by leftists).

Secondly it is INCUMBENT upon Sen. Obama to prove he is eligable to become President, not on us to disprove it>

3rdly- Even if he is sworn in and is our Leader (he won’t be pres untill he is proven valid as the CiC, IMO), we still are commanded to “pray” for him, which I will do; remember 1 Timothy Chapter 2!!..


283 posted on 11/15/2008 10:07:11 PM PST by JSDude1 (PAUL BROUN for House Republican Minority Leader..Mike Pence for conference chair!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping, will check it out.


284 posted on 11/15/2008 10:08:30 PM PST by nw_arizona_granny ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts?page=451 SURVIVAL, RECIPES, GARDENS, & INFO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Okay..I think I have come upon the Dagger to pierce right through this piece of Draft registration.

I can’t read the OMB number on the lower right very well. I may have missed Debbie posting it.

But here is what I do see. See the 2 at the end. I see 1 at the beginning.

So which one does it correlate to...it wouldn’t be one from 2008

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=3240-0002#
The one that would have been used in 1980 is this one:
198004-3240-001

I guess Debbie needs to tell everyone what the OMB number is on that document.


285 posted on 11/15/2008 10:09:09 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Here is the form with a Jan 82 date (??):


286 posted on 11/15/2008 10:10:34 PM PST by RubyR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: RubyR

Thanks for posting that..I am back to square one as that Reads OMB approval number...so now just need to correlate with approval number.


287 posted on 11/15/2008 10:11:56 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I don't know the details of the statements you mentioned so am unable to comment on them but if all of those things are true, then yes, it would seem to indicate that he was not born in Hawaii. I was just stating that a lag of several days between "birth" and "registration" would not surprise me in 1961. FWIW, Aug. 4, 1961 was a Friday and the alleged "state registration" occured the next Tuesday.

Cheers

288 posted on 11/15/2008 10:13:24 PM PST by theymakemesick (Buraq - The winged creature that carried mohammed on his Night Journey from Mecca to Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Froggie
Yes, the penalty for not registering is that the person can not hold a position in the executive branch of the government. I heard it said he registered late at a P O in Hawaii, but at that time he was in the US at school... so someone else, reportedly an uncle or grandfather is said to have submitted the registration. I believe there has to be a signature on that document and I’m sure if anyone cared that this fraud is not going to abide by the very constitution he is going to swear to uphold they could verify who actually signed the document... my guess — It twern’t Barry!

I have to disagree. There is no point in having a relative or someone else register for you. It's not like Joseph and Mary having to travel to Joseph's tribal home town of Bethlehem to register for Caesar's census. You could register at ANY post office in the country so long as it was within the statutory time after your 18th birthday (in Obama's case it was after the draft was re-instated when he was almost 19). Barry could have walked to the nearest post office close to the school on the mainland and registered. Done.

If, and there is doubt, that the FOIA released Selective Service form is a forgery, then it is far more likely that the radical, liberal, leftist, anti-war Obama did NOT register at all when required to... as a form of protest. The forgery, if it is, is newly created to establish that he registered in a timely manner, not because he wasn't present in his hometown to do so.

289 posted on 11/15/2008 10:14:05 PM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RubyR

The OMB approval number on yours is the control number on this form.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAOMBHistory?ombControlNumber=3240-0002#

And as you can see this is not a Jan 82 date on any of those actions..they come in Feb of 82.

So perhaps there is a printing date of the approved form and that printing date is Jan of 82 of some prior form.

Still very unclear at this point.


290 posted on 11/15/2008 10:16:54 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
I know how you feel...I've said all I've had to say, just sitting here lurking and shaking my head at the willfully ignorant.
291 posted on 11/15/2008 10:25:09 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: theymakemesick

292 posted on 11/15/2008 10:28:20 PM PST by smokingfrog (If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Can you hear yourself?

Polarik's followers also use Freepmail to spread gossip about posters like myself and allegedly (according to them) posted about me on another forum. That is all good. The more publicity I get on this particular issue, the better.

You are quite evidently in no position to question the sanity of anyone.

293 posted on 11/15/2008 10:30:08 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theymakemesick

And, I agree with you that on the face of it, there is nothing about the lag between the birth on the 4th and the registration on the 8th that would in and of itself raise an issue.


294 posted on 11/15/2008 10:37:00 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: palmer
You didn't quote the whole thing...

EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to DebbieSchlussel.com ****

*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES ***

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama's draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama's claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.

obamaselectiveserviceregist.jpg
Obamaselectiveserviceprinto.jpg

The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama's Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it's proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration ("SSS Form 1") and accompanying computer print-out ("SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case "0897080632," which I've labeled as "A" on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a "corrected" DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It's quite a "coincidence" . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama's lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to "80" instead of the current "08". They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn't do so.

And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it's his native Chicago. From an article entitled, "Post Office Registration Process", on the Selective Service website:

When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man's registration.

Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System's Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.

The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to "08" in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!

* Obama's Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form

On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as "B". On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as "FEB" (February), and the year is either "80" or "90". The retired federal agent investigated further:

Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a "80" or a "90".

But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it's apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a "Request for a new OMB control number" for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)--meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in "FEB 1980".

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it's nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama's SSS Form 1 to be dated "Feb 1980." And since that makes it almost certainly dated "Feb 1990," then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as "C". The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama's Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature

Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1's "Today's date" as July 30, 1980, labeled "D". But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day's date of July 29, 1980, labeled "E". Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a "cute" peace sign with the "b" inside the "O" of his signature. Touching.)

* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The "postmark" stamp--labeled "E"--is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is "USPO" which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current "postmark" validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows "USPS" for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic--Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama's suspicious Selective Service registration form?

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn't have ID

The SSS Form 1 states "NO ID", labeled "F". Since that's the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?

* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA'd Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.

Sincerely,

Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page

Where is Obama's Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?

And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no "heads up" that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October--around the 25th.

Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what's on it?

A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).

Which is it?

It's incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn't register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.

The documents indicate it's one or the other.

*** UPDATE: Here's another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:

My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama's Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled "A") has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the "8" was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn't simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.

**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.

He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.


295 posted on 11/15/2008 10:45:06 PM PST by hamboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: palmer

It looks like you have one, and only one point. Polarik’s analyses have made hundreds of points.


296 posted on 11/15/2008 10:57:38 PM PST by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
That's fair, it takes some insanity to wade into this mess. But I didn't imagine what I said about being talked about:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=6289#6289

Palmer was discussed in depth on another website yesterday. Folks over there have his number.

297 posted on 11/15/2008 11:01:44 PM PST by palmer (Some third party malcontents don't like Palin because she is a true conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

“One thing that just occured to me is how this Birth Certificate thing could really comprimise a president. Can you imagine the black-mail a foreign country could hold over our president, if they have solid and undeniable proof that he was born in another country? They could take it to the floor of the UN like Hugo Chevez did, and would at the very least, extremly embarass our nation and harm the office of the presidency. grief, what a horrible thought. Obama, please give us proof you are who you say you are.”

But the Marist enemies of the U.S. will never tell. They’re the beneficiaries of the lies that have made Obama president.


298 posted on 11/15/2008 11:03:43 PM PST by Mack Truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

bookmark


299 posted on 11/15/2008 11:05:32 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Can FreeRepublic be salvaged? (Birth Cerificate)

FreeRepublic has gone downhill in more ways than just the birth certificate issue. I've been visiting for over 5 1/2 years but it's starting to seem like it's not a good use of time.

The old posters who used to debate conservative ideas using truth and logic have melted away and the site has become conspiracy theory central. Some people have mentioned the "crypto-racist" remarks on many threads and that's a fair criticism. It used to be that questionable news stories that couldn't be supported would be shot down but now they are justified as "stirring the pot".

One thing that used to make FR exciting was that there seemed to be some genuine experts here from almost every field but I get the feeling that a lot of these people have left. The remaining posters keep trying to relive the triumph of the Dan Rather document incident but that was based on incontrovertible facts and so much of what appears here now is based on chains of speculation.

300 posted on 11/15/2008 11:08:31 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 481-493 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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