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

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 08/30/2010 8:09:46 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2579791/posts



Skip to comments.

'I CAN'T SPEND ALL OF MY TIME WITH MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE PLASTERED ON MY FOREHEAD'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41575.html ^ | 8/29/10 7:11 PM EDT | By GLENN THRUSH

Posted on 08/29/2010 8:16:02 PM PDT by hercuroc

“I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead,” quipped Obama, who took a deep breath to gather his thoughts when asked if the poll reflected his inability to communicate with voters.

“The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign — there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” said a visibly annoyed Obama, referring to “birthers,” who have waged a guerrilla campaign questioning either the existence or the validity of his Hawaiian birth certificate.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: angermanagement; ayatollahobama; bho44; birthcertificate; certifigate; dearleader; dramaqueen; fraud; government; hawaiianusurper; hissyfit; ilduce; indonesia; islam; kenya; military; musliminchief; muslims; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; paperhanger; politics; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-264 next last
To: hercuroc

Someone needs to photoshop Obama with a birth certificate on his head ala “bunny with a pancake on his head.” ;)


141 posted on 08/29/2010 10:59:39 PM PDT by anymouse (God didn't write this sitcom we call life, he's just the critic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
What is a guerrilla campaign?

Could I just please see the birth certificate?

142 posted on 08/29/2010 10:59:44 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Chump Obama promised "Change" and we got chump change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

143 posted on 08/29/2010 11:02:46 PM PDT by anymouse (God didn't write this sitcom we call life, he's just the critic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
>>> Only a third identified Obama, who speaks passionately about his faith in his autobiography, as Christian.

Why do we need to rely on A BOOK about his passion for being a Christian??

A book mind you, that most likely was written by someone else.

Just the fact that we have to look to A BOOK about such passion proves he is not a Christian and that someone else wrote it.

How stupid do they think we are??

144 posted on 08/29/2010 11:04:17 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Chump Obama promised "Change" and we got chump change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Yeah, he is sweating this big time. I hope more of those huge billboard posters go up around the country now.


145 posted on 08/29/2010 11:04:27 PM PDT by NOBO2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
I CAN'T SPEND ALL OF MY TIME WITH MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE PLASTERED ON MY FOREHEAD',

Why not bro?

I'm 53 and have to show an ID to buy beer in a store in TN. Deal with it.

146 posted on 08/29/2010 11:05:56 PM PDT by wardaddy (effed up times..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Article, and # 30. There are a lot of good comments in this thread.

[Thanks for the pings.]

147 posted on 08/29/2010 11:22:42 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I’m sure his facilitators will reign him in.


148 posted on 08/29/2010 11:28:43 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead

Then why not plaster it for a few minutes in front of the camera? That way the image is saved forever and you could then remove it and play golf.

149 posted on 08/29/2010 11:36:31 PM PDT by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

He ACTUALLY said that? I thought this was a joke!


The joke is on us. It is the equivalent of Clinton saying “I can’t spend all my time with my fly zipped.”

The interesting quality of the statement is that he thinks it responded to the question about people thinking he was a Muslim. What he was really responding to is a question that was not asked about his citizenship. When an investigator asks a suspect, “Where were you Friday night?” and he answers, “I didn’t kill that woman” experience tells you that he did. Obama is not worried about whether he is a Muslim. He knows that being a Muslim is not a disqualification for holding his office. He is worried about the probing into his citizenship. He is worried that somewhere there is evidence that he was a foreign student at one of the universities where he studied or that some document may surface that didn’t get scrubbed. Obama is worried that the media will finally look into the holes in his resume now that they have discovered that he is an empty suit.

Williams should have followed up with, “ I didn’t ask you about your birth certificate. I was asking about religion.” That would have flustered him and possibly gotten more interesting responses.


150 posted on 08/29/2010 11:55:34 PM PDT by excopconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

A simple capital “L” on his forehead will suffice.


151 posted on 08/30/2010 12:04:12 AM PDT by rfp1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

“The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign — there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly...”

Sounds like a new explantion for the VRWC, if you ask me.

Which...you didn’t. ;o)


152 posted on 08/30/2010 12:06:45 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Remember November...I can see it from my house!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

I think I’ve had some kind of mental break recently—when he talks, I just say “Ah, shut up” and can’t hear or read his words. Must be some kind of pre-emptive move by my brain to keep itself from exploding.


153 posted on 08/30/2010 12:22:56 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. -- written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

Maybe the next rally in DC should be a march to the White House demanding to see the BC?


154 posted on 08/30/2010 12:44:29 AM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

To: The Duke; hercuroc; All
"OBAMA ELIGIBILITY RALLY, Washington D.C. 10/23/10

Berg will be with Volunteers At Glen Beck Rally – Aug. 28th Handing out Flyers Regarding October 23rd Rally

The Obama Birth Certificate / Eligibility / ObamaCare Rally in Washington will be Saturday, October 23, 2010
U.S. Capitol – West Front

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 08/28/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States stated that “WE THE PEOPLE” by and through Philip J. Berg and Obamacrimes.com is sponsoring the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington on Saturday, October 23, 2010 – 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. at U.S. Capitol – West Front.

The OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE / ELIGIBILITY/ OBAMACARE Rally in Washington, D.C. is for the purpose of exposing Soetoro/Obama and demanding that he proves that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President, or for the benefit of the 308 million citizens of the United States, to resign from office."

Continued:

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=1145

156 posted on 08/30/2010 1:07:12 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Emailed that exact same sentiment to Fox & Friends.

Hope I get my big break! LOL

157 posted on 08/30/2010 1:07:41 AM PDT by rvoitier (Progressives are in the GOP, too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc; All
Barry never was, nor ever could be a "Natural Born Citizen" as intended by the framers when they put that requirement into the Constitution for one and only one position. That of Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Regardless of wherever Barry may have been born...

His father was a foreigner (assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth). As such, Barry was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by birthright. Even assuming HI birth (which he can't prove), he would have been born a citizen/subject of two countries. Divided loyalties owed from birth. Never was, never could be a Natural Born Citizen. He's a usurper.

158 posted on 08/30/2010 1:12:11 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

How can a USURPER command our armed forces?
How can a USURPER make appointments to the Supreme Court?
How can a USURPER sign any treaties with foreign governments?
How can a USURPER sign anything into law, let alone the health care monstrosity?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

“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.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

 

Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

...

the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro * NOT Obama / Soetoro
* This assumes HI birth.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obama’s maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).

Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
 
==============================================================================
 
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).

The Constitution

The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

...

Article 1. section 8, clause 10:

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

Again, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."

After the Constitution is penned

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..

Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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))"

SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

159 posted on 08/30/2010 1:14:04 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

Comment #160 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-264 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