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

Skip to comments.

Eligibility rulings vanish from Net (Minor v Happersett, FReeper Danae quoted)
World Net Daily ^ | October 23, 2011 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp

A New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court has published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.

The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.

Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: "This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive."

She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, "but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.

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


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: americanlegalnet; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; justia; justiaunreliable; leodonofrio; minor; minorvhappersett; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nolo; obama; publicresourceorg; stacystern; stopusingjustia; timstanley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last
To: Mr Rogers
I took a quick look at KWA , and did not see any specific language that stated “Natural-Born Citizen is born in the USA”. That would be very simple for them to say. In its conclusion It states that anyone born in the USA to residents in the USA is a US Citizen. It never says NBC in its conclusion. Seems to me they were very careful not to tread on Minor VS Happersetts definition of NBC. A very clear sentence.

Can you see where they actually pin down the definition? It would be a very simple statement to make for these judges.

I can see they ramble on about English law, but citizens are entirely different from subject. A subject is more like a slave.

The dissent in KWA is an interesting read as well. That might provide more ammunition in support of our Kenyan Prince, as it tells the full spin of arguments.

As I understand it, the dissent was agitated that the decision might be read to allow foreign citizens into the presidency. It seems even back then, they knew an opportunist anti American with direct roots into foreign countries would attempt to destroy the country.

161 posted on 10/26/2011 5:14:06 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
That's a pretty clear statement that someone born in Hawaii in 1961 was born "in allegiance" to the U.S. and, taken with the previous quotes, is a natural-born citizen regardless of his parents' condition (usual exceptions for ambassadors etc.).

Why are there "exceptions" at all? You mention Ambassadors, but you leave out two other important "exceptions." Slaves were not citizens either. (Unless they had first been manumitted.) Indians were not citizens (despite the 14th amendment) until 1924.

YOUR theory is FULL of "exceptions." The Jus Sanguinus principle (Which is what ENGLAND ITSELF uses to crown it's head of state) has NO EXCEPTIONS.

Does it not occur to any of you that the existence of "exceptions" demonstrates that it is not a "natural law" principle? Indeed, the "exceptions" for Ambassadors are a result of a "natural law" intrusion into the artificial (man made) principle of "jus soli."

162 posted on 10/26/2011 6:46:43 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
What is most insulting is that obama claims he is eligible by birth in Hawaii, yet refuses to allow open access to all Hawaiian records.

Yes. Every action he has taken since announcing his candidacy were not the actions of an honest man with nothing to hide. No one would have called for his birth certificate had there not been so many references to his "Kenyan" origins. Then when he releases that little rump document instead of the real thing, most of the nation just yawned and rolled over. It should have been a klaxon call. We have become stupid, and deserve the misery which is coming to us.

We haven't heard anything from the Arizona Sheriff, but his posse may yet declare the BC the fraud that it is and refuse to allow him on their ballot. This may crack it wide open.

I expect they have already decided for themselves what it is, but simply haven't announced anything until they can find a "troll proof" way of proving it. As disgusted as I am with the Democrats, I am more disgusted with the people who are supposedly on our side that have put forth more effort than the democrats in defending Obama's supposed legitimacy. What is the Matter with these people?

163 posted on 10/26/2011 6:54:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

He places all his qualification chips on his place of birth, yet refuses to reveal all his qualification cards. Hawaii is holding his many cards, face down, and he then takes the pot - on his word only.

Then, he has Abercromby and company manufacture a card.

This is BS. The guy wasn’t born in Hawaii.


164 posted on 10/26/2011 7:54:52 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Again I must simply say that I do not agree.

I've discussed this with others who have legal experience and strong track records of being correct on these matters. Unanimously none of them agree with your understanding of Minor vs. Happersett.

Couple that with coding errors providing a reasonable explanation for why this happened and this being only one of numerous legal resources available, I just don't buy the conspiracy angle.

165 posted on 10/26/2011 10:04:35 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
YOUR theory is FULL of "exceptions." The Jus Sanguinus principle (Which is what ENGLAND ITSELF uses to crown it's head of state) has NO EXCEPTIONS.

I'm a little surprised that you're holding up England as a model here. Usually when someone quotes the Wong Kim Ark decision to the effect that "The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government," they get a lecture about how we fought a war and how citizens are nothing like subjects at all etc etc.

But your question illustrates the difference in our approaches to this topic. You start with what you think the law should accomplish--have no exceptions, keep Obama out of the presidency--and poke and prod the actual words in an attempt to make them do that. I try to figure out what the words actually say and mean, even if I don't like some of the results they end up permitting.

166 posted on 10/26/2011 10:34:46 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

the point is not arguing whether or not a person born of foreign citizen parents is a citizen, but whether or not such a person would be ‘natural born’. this is the trick of the anti-birthers. they try to distract by clouding the issue, forcing citizenship and natural born citizen into the same discussion. obviously, natural born status is a sub group of citizenship, therefore there is no need to discuss whether or not someone is a citizen, that is a given assuming the person was born on US soil (extending to US held properties for military families serving outside CONUS at the behest of the government).

as per your link:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, 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”

this is correct for citizenship, currently, but not for natural born status. also note, “is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen”. this implies a natural born citizen would be different than a native born/naturalized citizen. how could it be different, if not by both parents being citizens at the time of birth?

and this would be as intended by the founders.

the intent of the founders was to insure no foreign loyalties in the highest office of the land. to this extent, they introduced the specific language into the Constitution.

Charles Pinckney’s statement in the U.S. Senate in 1800

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”

additionally:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

therefore it would be impossible for an individual, born of one or both non-citizen parents, to be natural born.

citizen, yes. natural born citizen, no.

it’s just not possible.


167 posted on 10/26/2011 12:27:22 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: sten

WKA has answered those arguments. There is no distinction in the law between a natural born citizen, and someone who is a citizen by birth. Nor was there prior to the Constitution.

The meaning of natural born citizen is simply the American form of the already established legal phrase, natural born subject. That is why the WKA decision wrote,

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Notice they make no distinction between the rule as applying to natural born subjects in the colonies, and natural born citizens post-Constitution, but say, “The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

In Elk, earlier, the court wrote, “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,”

and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (60 U.S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

Since WKA, and also well before it, the court does not accept the idea of 3 classes of citizens - natural born, native born, and naturalized.

Indeed, Minor points this out: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

That applies native and natural born to the same class, and distinguishes it from aliens.

I could give you a dozen or more quotes from the early 1800s showing this, but why? They are cited in WKA.

The legal debate is over. The dissent to WKA makes a reasonable argument, but it remains the DISSENT.

And the Supreme Court is not ducking the issue. They consider it settled law, as it was considered settled law before Obama was born.

In the end, even the hardest core birther has to admit that no court and no state is even willing to consider their case. It is over, folks! Agree or not - and a reasonable person can disagree - the fact remains that it is settled and accepted law.

Frankly, what pisses me off is that birthers won’t admit that the WKA decision, even if it was wrong, was still a rational argument - just as the dissent was. The idea that is has always been settled and accepted law that the child born in the USA of alien parents cannot run for President is simply...STUPID. There are too many court cases and legal writings showing, at a minimum, that a significant number of honest people thought otherwise, and have done so since the Constitution was written.

I don’t mind folks saying they think it is the wrong conclusion, but it is just lunacy to pretend that no one prior to 2008 thought the child of a citizen and a non-citizen could run for President. The idea that I’m an Obamabot because I agree with the reasoning of the NY court in 1844, for example, is just stupid. The idea that Zephaniah Swift, writing about the law in 1795, said ““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens” because he was an Obamabot is STUPID.

One can try to argue that Swift was wrong, or that James Kent was wrong in writing “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States” back in 1826, but it is stupid to say he was an Obamabot.


168 posted on 10/26/2011 1:33:30 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

saying that any person born within the US is natural born, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents, is absurd. if this were true, then the founders would not have not use the phrase ‘natural born’. it would also mean any anchor baby could be president, so long as they were of age and in the US for 14 years.

sen bill S.2128 tried to push this and it didn’t fly.

native born == born within the US

natural born == a native born person born of two US parents

fairly simple and straight forward.

i am native born, having been born of an American father and a british mother, who became a US citizen later. i am not eligible for POTUS due to this.

do i have split alliances? sure. i feel affinity towards scotland, more so then if i had no ties whatsoever. this is exactly what the founders were pushing to avoid. their intent, captured in simple language made convoluted by those attempting to help ‘their team’, was to insure the integrity of the highest office of the land. to insure the person holding the office had the best interests of the US in mind.

i think we can all see the wisdom of their ideals on display over the last 2 1/2 yrs.


169 posted on 10/26/2011 2:07:42 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Then why does In RE Lockwood contain a passage stating that Natural Born Citizenship is only important in determining eligiblity for POTUS and cites Minor for the defination? If the case was so irrelevant, why single it out for scrubbing?

The code error Stanley came up with as an excuse is total BS. a “ .* “ would have to be attached to specific characters, in this case “Minor v Happersett”: and all the other SPECIFIC text that was removed from those cases. That was no accident. It was no accident that the case numbers got changed to make them harder to search. It is no accident that text and citations got removed from cases which had anything to say about citizenship.

It actually strains credulity to state that it was an accident. A code error which didn;t get noticed for a year with an * involved in Regex code? Seriously? I don;t think so. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, eats and flies like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

Minor is cited dozens of times on matters of voting rights AND citizenship. It is supported in historical SCOTUS law. It is solid, and very well defined and cited.

I disagree strongly with your resources.


170 posted on 10/26/2011 2:18:18 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: sten

“if this were true, then the founders would not have not use the phrase ‘natural born’.”

No, it isn’t. Read the WKA decision. Natural born subject had a well established legal meaning in 1787, and it included those born of aliens. NBC is the American form of NBS, unless the Founders were deliberately trying to confuse people.

And the states replaced NBS in their laws with NBC, so it seems pretty plausible that the terms carry the same basic legal meaning.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


171 posted on 10/26/2011 2:24:28 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I'm a little surprised that you're holding up England as a model here. Usually when someone quotes the Wong Kim Ark decision to the effect that "The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government," they get a lecture about how we fought a war and how citizens are nothing like subjects at all etc etc.

I merely note that the British do not use their OWN law in the manner you claim we should use ours. You and others are constantly going on about English Jurisprudence being the source of American law on this issue, so I thought you might be persuaded by the obvious example of the English NOT employing the law in the manner you suggest.

But while we are on the subject, do you believe the English Common law regarding "natural born subject" is the basis for the American Article II term, "natural born citizen"?

But your question illustrates the difference in our approaches to this topic. You start with what you think the law should accomplish--have no exceptions, keep Obama out of the presidency--and poke and prod the actual words in an attempt to make them do that.

As the law was created at the instigation of John Jay's urging that it be made to do exactly that, (keep foreign influence out of the executive) it occurs to me that any interpretation which does not accomplish the goal for which the legislation was created, MUST BE WRONG.

I try to figure out what the words actually say and mean, even if I don't like some of the results they end up permitting.

As do I. I have already acknowledged to others of your side (perhaps you have seen it?) that I cede Madison's comments (regarding the seating of Mr. Smith) to you, and Rawles, and a couple of others. It is evident that there were people in American History that believed just being born within our borders creates natural born citizens without any regard for the parent's citizenship. I can only conclude that such people just didn't get the memo.

Anyway, I too go where the facts lead, even if I don't like the result.

172 posted on 10/26/2011 2:32:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: sten
First you write

this implies a natural born citizen would be different than a native born/naturalized citizen.

But then you approvingly cite a quote that says

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen

Don't those two statements contradict each other? Doesn't that second quote mean that a native-born citizen would be the same as a natural-born citizen?

173 posted on 10/26/2011 2:47:17 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

this should explain it:

native born == born within the US
natural born == a native born person born of two US parents

followed by:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

note:
“of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty”


174 posted on 10/26/2011 2:58:30 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Danae

One thing at a time.

“Then why does In RE Lockwood contain a passage stating that Natural Born Citizenship is only important in determining eligiblity for POTUS.”

Near as I can tell, it doesn’t. I’d appreciate a reference if this is incorrect.


175 posted on 10/26/2011 3:42:12 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: sten
this should explain it:
native born == born within the US
natural born == a native born person born of two US parents

Not really. You cited a reference to "that provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen." But the Constitution says "natural born," not "native born." So how can your quote be right unless natural born and native born mean the same thing?

176 posted on 10/26/2011 4:52:06 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
..,..As the law was created at the instigation of John Jay's urging that it be made to do exactly that, (keep foreign influence out of the executive) it occurs to me that any interpretation which does not accomplish the goal for which the legislation was created, MUST BE WRONG....

Its not only wrong it is an ABSURD result..How many Americans truly believe our founders who created this wonderful Constitution would allow the offspring of two illegal aliens temporarily in the US to be eligible to be President of the US?

It is bad enough some a$$ clowns decided without authority from Congress or the people that offspring of illegal aliens who snuck across our borders and broke our laws are citizens. Not only does it reward illegal behavior, it encourages it. That is wrong and absurd on its face also but not as bad as having a President of illegals. Do liberals have no common sense and devoid of logic? Only mentally ill persons could propose such nonsense.

177 posted on 10/26/2011 5:02:18 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

the Constitution states the person must be natural born, which is a subset of native born. the statement is not incorrect, it’s just not fully accurate.

there are citizens that are native born... but not all native born citizens are natural born

all natural born citizens are native born


178 posted on 10/26/2011 5:12:14 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Excuse me, I am so sorry, I mixed up case names... there are SO MANY running through my head right now.

In Re lockwood shows that Minor was a HOLDING (It created Law). From Donofrio's analysis:

"A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

"“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”"

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/



It is the Luria case I was thinking of, my apologies El Sordo. Here is the relevant text from Luria:

"“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”"

Note the italic text, the 165 is a page number, and used like this is totally legit as a citation. However, if someone were going to search for Minor using the case number, the search would be for the official citation which is 88 US 162, the 162 being the page the case starts on. Notice that the other official citation "21 Wall.162" was removed in it's entirety, as that would have been easily searchable.

Here is what Justia changed it to:

"“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”"

Now when you couple these two citations, the first confirming that Monor created law specific to citizenship, and the second in relation to the Presidency... yeah. Now tell me how that gets explained by a " .* " tag? No flippin way.
179 posted on 10/26/2011 5:51:30 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Danae
WND has the Sheriff in the headline.

Hinting he may have something ....

180 posted on 10/26/2011 6:28:00 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 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