Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
At an intensely combative and vitriolic hearing Friday afternoon in a sex-abuse case that has shaken the Philadelphia Archdiocese to its core, a state court judge shocked one priest's defense attorney by disclosing that the government thinks he might be a witness as a former seminarian and could be disqualified from the case. The lawyer, who represents one of three current and former Roman Catholic priests charged with raping boys in their parish, fired back that prosecutors were being "anti-Catholic" and had uttered an "abomination."
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."
The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.
"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."
Prosecutors said only that part of DeSipio's seminary training overlapped with the tenure of a senior clergyman accused of endangering children by failing to protect them from priests with a known history of abuse.
Monsignor William Lynn, now pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, Pa., is reportedly the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States ever to be charged with child endangerment. Between 1984 and 1992, he served as dean of men at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pa., according to his biography on St. Joseph's website. As the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, Lynn acted as personnel director for priests. He is accused of ignoring reports of abuse, covering up for them and putting children in danger.
"They are anti-Catholic. I'll say it," DiSipio fumed. "[The district attorney is] attacking me as a Catholic!"
The judge rejected DiSipio's claim. "Attack you? You attacked me! You don't even know me!" Hughes said, referring to a prior argument over the necessity of a preliminary hearing, another hotly contested issue Friday afternoon.
"Mr. DeSipio, I suggest you shut up," Hughes said. "People are coming from out of the woodwork [to provide information to the commonwealth.]"
If the government can prove the allegation is credible in 30 days, DeSipio will be disqualified as the archdiocese's attorney.
"You can change lawyers now, you can change lawyers in 30," the judge warned DeSipio's client, the Rev. James Brennan. "[But] there are some conflicts that are not waivable."
DeSipio argued that the 30-day investigation was "really unfair to Father Brennan," given his mounting legal costs.
Judge Hughes was livid that DeSipio spoke up again. "If you open your mouth one more time I am going to have the sheriff take you out of here," she told DeSipio.
As DeSipio continued to argue, Hughes said she might have him "locked up and held in contempt." Instead she issued a gag order, responding to what she observed as attorneys having "gone to the airways to advocate."
"No more interviews with anyone," the judge ruled.
"Does that include the DA going on Chris Matthews' 'Hardball' and going to the New York Times," defense attorney Michael McGovern asked.
The judge responded affirmatively: "I don't want tweets. I don't want Facebook. I don't want IMs [instant messages]."
Hughes said the court will revisit the gag order on April 15, when defendants are to be arraigned. That date also marks the deadline for the DA to provide the defense with the first batch of discovery, she said.
All but one of the defense attorneys challenged the government's amendment to its case, which added a conspiracy charge that had not explicitly been requested of the grand jury.
"The issue here is that if the DA seeks to amend, it has to be subject to some sort of prima facie determination," the defense argued.
The judge found otherwise, ruling that the commonwealth established "good cause" in its pleadings and that "there is no constitutional right - federal or state - for a preliminary hearing."
It was "a technical error on the commonwealth not to charge conspiracy" originally, Hughes said. "Conspiracy is made," and the defendants will not be afforded a preliminary hearing, she ruled.
Hughes said there was abundant evidence to support the amendment.
"I'm the only person, besides the prosecutors, who has seen every stitch of evidence," she said.
Defense attorney McGovern argued that her admission was precisely the problem.
"Your Honor, this is patently unfair!" McGovern said. "You know the evidence. They know the evidence. I don't know what the evidence is! I haven't seen any!"
The attorney said proceeding to trial without a preliminary hearing was like saying, "Let's have a dart game in a dark room."
"What kind of country is this where we have this?" he shouted.
The judge yelled back, baring her teeth: "You sit down! Sit, sit, sit!"
DeSipio agreed with McGovern that their clients deserve a preliminary hearing, which could allow them to confront their accusers.
"There's no witness. I know that they [the prosecutors] don't like that he's in jail," DeSipio said. "This accuser says there was an erect penis in his buttocks."
"Was it in your buttocks, or was it in your anus," he asked rhetorically. "If that question wasn't asked [of the grand jury], and he didn't specify anus or butt cheeks, I have a right to ask that."
"What you can't do, and what I submit they're trying to do, is say just because we have a grand jury, we have good cause [to by-pass a preliminary hearing]," DeSipio said.
The judge also addressed a potential conflict of interest concerning Monsignor Lynn, who unlike the three current and former priests, faces child endangerment charges - not rape or sexual assault. Plans for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to pay Lynn's legal costs present "a whole array of conflicts that I can't even imagine at this point in time," Hughes said.
"It's real simple," the judge said to Lynn, who was donning his clerical collar, "your master is the person that's putting bread on the table."
"It may be in your best interest to put forth a defense that attacks other people [or the church]," Hughes said.
She told Lynn he was putting himself in the position of receiving "advice from people who are being paid by people whose interests don't necessarily align with yours."
The stakes of this gamble could amount to "14 years of incarceration versus probation," she said.
Lynn, in a calm voice, declined. "Well, I trust these two men." he said, adding that the church hadn't placed any conditions on the payment of his legal costs.
Hughes was incredulous. "You are making a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to place yourself in conflict with your attorneys?" she asked.
"I am," Lynn responded, waiving his right to any future appeal based on the argument that his attorneys had a conflict of interest.
"Then we're moving forward," the judge said.
After arraignments and release of the first batch of discovery, which will include grand jury notes and testimony, on April 15, the government will begin putting together a second batch. The government said that batch would take longer to produce, as it will include roughly 10,000 pages of documentation, much of which will need to be redacted.
Hughes said the government must give the defense a specific timeline for the production of the second batch. "There has to be some finality," she said.
In January, a grand jury returned an indictment for rape and sexual assault against one current priest, one defrocked priest and one man who taught at a Catholic school. Monsignor Lynn, the third cleric who worked for the archdiocese as secretary of clergy, is accused of giving known abusers easy access to minors.
Don’t be ridiculous. I told you that no one in my congregation voted for Obama. Unless they lied, they didn’t. You’re freaking out unnecessarily.
You told me no such thing. You told the good Dr. E. that you personally guaranteed that nobody in your church voted for Obama. I just wanted to know how you could guarantee the outcome of a secret ballot in the United States in a federal election and what your guarantee consisted of.
You've only posted one unsubstantiated source for a survey. I brought attention to a good scientifically accurate poll as an example and asked you multiple times to come up a scientifically accurate poll that you preferred and then we could discuss the facts. Instead, all you've done is obfuscate and claim that I ignore negative data. Since you have only posted to me unsubstantiated opinions and no data, your statement is as absurd as your theology.
False. You have posted the same unsubstantiated survey several times (from two different links). You have not posted a scientifically accurate survey. I have suggested one, but am not bound to it. Can you not find a scientifically accurate survey? Do you understand what one is?
“You told the good Dr. E. that you personally guaranteed that nobody in your church voted for Obama. I just wanted to know how you could guarantee the outcome of a secret ballot in the United States in a federal election and what your guarantee consisted of. “
I think you are being hyper.
Is that the fact you're disagreeing with>
Because all you are doing is defaming various studies and not telling us what you think they got wrong.
Do you believe the US is over 50% Protestant and 24% Roman Catholic?
Only if you are in the city of Chicago run by a god-mayor (formerly Daley and now Emanuel).
Let us see what Boise State University has to say:
In 1541, too, Calvin was invited back to Geneva by the city council (the Bern faction had been voted out). His reputation had grown to such stature that the city regarded him as a prize. From the beginning of his return to Geneva, Calvin made it plain that he was going to have a strong voice in how the city was run. By November of that year, a series of ordinances were passed that created in Geneva that division of lay and spiritual powers that had long been the theoretical ideal in Europe. The City Council governed, but the Consistory (made up of preachers and elders) ruled on all matters of faith and could refer citizens to the City Council for disciplining.
This created the Geneva known to most people: the Geneva that forbade dancing and gambling, that constrained its citizens in every direction, and that executed heretics on its own authority. Later historians have called it a theocracy, pointing out that in nearly every case that mattered, the Consistory—with John Calvin as the driving force behind it—got its way and was not overruled by the City Council...
When John Knox arrived in Geneva as a refugee, he declared that the city was the most perfect Christian community he'd ever seen. Even so, tensions existed. While Calvin's old enemies had been forced out of power, they hadn't been forced out of town, and there were grumblings from them. Grumblings, too, came from ordinary citizens who resented the influx of foreigners, especially Frenchmen, who were now pouring into Geneva, making it rather a different town and bringing economic dislocation in their wake.
The grumblings boiled over from time to time. There was talk and sometimes placards appeared mysteriously in public. There were even occasional threats of violence. These were met vigorously by the city; in a few cases, arrests were made, resulting in at least one case in an execution. Calvin did not take public criticism well and took public mockery even worse.
The most notorious case, though, was really external to all this. In 1553 Michael Servetus was fleeing for his life, having been condemned as a heretic both by the Catholic Church and by the French crown. He was going to Italy, but stopped on the way in Geneva. Even though he and Calvin had engaged in a long, bitter correspondence, Servetus couldn't resist going to see Calvin preach on that Sunday. He was recognized and was immediately arrested.
Servetus was a difficult man. He was obstreperous and argumentative, and was utterly convinced he was right and everyone else was wrong, and never missed a chance to say so. The trouble was, his beliefs were so radical that pretty much all Christendom hated and feared him. He denied the Trinity. He claimed Christ was not a man, and many other heresies. He had held these for years, until he'd finally run out of friends to protect him.
Calvin was not a hesitant man. He had declared that if Servetus ever came to Geneva he would not leave. After some months in prison, Servetus was at last condemned by the City Council to be burned at the stake. Calvin's role in his condemnation (though not the sentence) was pivotal...
Education has always been a cornerstone of Calvinist churches, and this tradition stems from Calvin himself. He reformed Geneva's college and founded a separate Academy in 1559 specifically for religious education and the training of pastors. Theodore Béza was its first administrator. From its beginning, students came from all across Europe, were trained in Calvinist doctrine and practice, then returned to their homelands not only to minister but also to preach and evangelize. In this way, Geneva from about 1560 became an evangelical center, and Calvinism began to make its influence felt everywhere: for example, the Puritans in England, the Dutch Reformed movement, the so-called Second Reformation in Germany, and the Huguenots in France.
The Academy was strongly grounded in humanist methods, for both Calvin and Béza had received solid humanist education...
This is the real Calvin - humanism masquerading as Christianity, and an elected Council that was a tyannical rubberstamp for Calvin's every bloodthirsty and power made whim. Any difference from Mayor Daley? Boss Tweed? Any other American demogod that we can name?
The pattern of Calvin's corrupt government was adopted by the East Germans and American mobsters. Nice model.
The online library at the European University Institute says that:
In the thought of Calvin, state and church were distinct, but each in its proper sphere was to cooperate with the other in their great common purpose: to serve and glorify God. By the end of his career he had achieved a complete dominance of Geneva, which makes it possible for us to see what his full program was. All inhabitants had to renounce the Roman faith on penalty of expulsion from the city. Nobody could possess images, crucifixes or other articles associated with the Roman worship. Fasting was prohibited, together with vows, pilgrimages, prayers for the dead, and prayers in Latin. Nobody could say anything good about the pope. It was forbidden to give non-Biblical names to children. In 1555, a man who had been found lighting a candle before the body of his dead child was called before the Consistory.
Attendance at sermons was compulsory. In addition, one had to arrive on time, remain, and pay attention. In 1547, a man who left during the sermon and made too much noise about it was imprisoned. From 1545, there were domiciliary visits, which were put on a regular semiannual basis in 1550. The homes of the citizens were visited in order to ascertain the state of the family's morals. A great many spies were maintained, to report on matters of conduct and behavior. Dramatic performances were suppressed, except for plays given by schoolboys. Sexual immorality was frequently practiced and frequently chastised. One of the offenses considered particularly serious was criticism of the ministers and especially Calvin.
From 1546, cards and dice were forbidden. There were to be no taverns; instead, places were provided for eating and drinking, in which pious behavior would be encouraged. In these nurseries of righteousness, a Bible in French was to be displayed, religious conversation encouraged, and excessive drinking, indecent songs, cursing, cards, dice, and dancing forbidden. They were to close at nine in the evening. This experiment lasted three months, during which people did not come to these places, and then the taverns were opened once more. It was many years before all these regulations were put into effect; as a matter of fact, opposition to Calvin was quite serious for several years after his return in 1541. His opponents were not necessarily wicked and immoral, although there were persons of that description among them. There were very strong political motives impelling hostility to his regime. The foreign refugees who poured into the city and strongly supported Calvin appeared as a threat to the native citizens. Though there were some who disagreed with Calvin's doctrines, his enemies were not Catholics but supporters of the Reformation. Some of them were members of prominent Geneva families, who defied Calvin's strict moral regulations, possibly under the erroneous impression that their social status would protect them.
The most serious aspect of the situation, from Calvin's point of view, was that his enemies were gaining seats in the councils and were being elected as syndics. There was friction between Calvin and the councils, which also took over more and more control of church affairs. In 1553 his opponents secured a majority in the council and tried to deprive the Consistory of the power to excommunicate. Calvin's courageous resistance to this attempt helped to turn the tide in his favor, and the year 1553 marks the turning point in the struggle with his enemies...
The execution of Servetus helped to solidify Calvin's hold on Geneva. In 1555, his friends were victorious in the elections, and a riot gave an excuse for crushing his enemies, some of whom fled while others were put to death. From 1555 to his death in 1564, Calvin was supreme in the city. Not only in the church but also in the state was his influence dominant; the councils treated him with great reverence and respect, granted his requests, and consulted him on matters of public policy. In 1559 he was asked to accept citizenship in Geneva, which he had previously refrained from doing to avoid the appearance of self-seeking. One of the most significant signs of his victory was that the right of excommunication was acknowledged to belong to the Consistory. This was something that Calvin had wanted since his first appearance in Geneva; until this time, however, the council had always insisted on taking part. From now on, the Consistory received the wholehearted cooperation of the civil authorities and the full Calvinist regime, as described earlier, was imposed on the citizens. Regulations were made more strict: For example, ministers were to have their dwellings throughout the city, in order to watch over vice more effectively. In 1558, edicts were issued that closely regulated clothing and food, to repress the extravagance that had prevailed in these areas. In 1561, the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of the Church of Geneva of 1541 were revised in such a way as to conform more closely to Calvin's wishes. The press was censored by the ministers. Crosses that remained on the church spires were removed. The number of excommunications rose. There had been eighty in the four years from 1551 54; in 1555 there were nearly a hundred; in 1556, the number reached one hundred forty; and in 1559 over three hundred were excommunicated.
What a great role model. Disagree with Calvin and be killed. Mock Calvin and be killed. What a nasty, egotistical, non Christian bloodthirsty and power mad tyrant. How is Calvin different from Moammar Ghadafy in terms of rule? How about the ayatollahs in Iran? Or the mullahs in Afghanistan? What's the difference?
Only the names change when dealing with bloodthirsty tyrants, Dr. E. When I see the fawning lickspittle Ghadafy adherents on the news praising the mass murderer of their choice, I think of all the good little Reformed windup robots waddling about the world, proclaiming their theology of death.
And you have? I suppose that that would explain the fact that you either missed or falsified the fact that the Second Amendment Foundation was smeared with being accused by you of using the term 'inconvenient truth' when it turned out that that it was your link description in your own words which parroted a liberal newspaper's own headline and lead for the story which was never in the SAF's press release in any way whatsoever.
I do not equate and never intimated that they were equivalent. The Pew group is well known for its antiCatholic bias, just as most liberal groups are. Calvinist organizations are well know for their antiCatholic biases as well. I think that it is the seizing on one antiCatholic's bile by another antiCatholic group and I in no way intended to present them as equivalent or in collusion in any way.
It also seems that you yourself have invoked statistics, and your demanding standard is not shared by RCs who quote stats which show things which make Protestants look badly. And if that were overall the case, i do not think i would find RCs questioning their veracity.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. Proof is proof and wishful thinking is wishful thinking. If the good Doctor wishes to engage in grand mal seizure type behaviour in waving around a prayer hanky utilizing unsubstantiated claims in claiming victory over the Christians, then, I shall challenge those claims.
I have offered up an example scientifically accurate poll and asked her to come up with her own if she does not like that one and I have repeatedly offered to discuss data and scientifically accurate conclusions, regardless of which scientifically accurate poll she wishes to use.
And rather than showing great disparity, an overall uniformity is evidenced Catholic studies show Catholics as more liberal. If you find stats that overall show the opposite, then let me know. I have not.
More liberal in what way than what group?
Ping to post.
I’m curious about whether Dr. E has worked on a newspaper, too. I’ve asked twice, and still have not gotten an answer.
By the way, Mark, there are some more arguments going on in the RF. I’m not sure if we’ve pinged you to all of them, but you’ll probably find all of them by searching through my history.
Under the current rules, Mark's idiotic comment to me would be chalked up to his usual writing style and ignored.
Under what seems to be a possible revision of the rules, this comment is clearly offensive to me and to an entire denomination and so it should be pulled.
See the problem?
Comments are allowed to be critical of religions, just not individuals. His comment was not "making it personal."
Very good, Cronos. Let us take the Nicene Creed and compare with the OPC's beliefs:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
So far, the OPC is on track.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Well, not really; they think of Jesus as a lesser God than the Father. The OPC Church says that:
Jesus is God's doorway through the wall. God appointed his Son to be the substitute for those whom he would save. Jesus loved the Father with every fiber of his being. He obeyed the Father's holy will completely. He died on Calvary's cross as the atoning sacrifice, bearing all the sins of his people. He rose again from the dead and was exalted to the place of glory at the Father's side.
For the OPC, Jesus is a lesser or messenger god to God the Father, much like Mercury was the messenger of Jupiter in the Roman Pantheon of gods. This is not Christian.
As well, The OPC Church says that:
Christ is, in reality, the one true worshiper.[5] Our worship is a participation in his. Further, our worship in Christ is by the Holy Spirit.
Here, the OPC says that Christ worships God the Father, and the Holy Spirit worships Christ. Not Trinitarian, but polytheist.
Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary,
Here, they more or less agree with Christianity.
and became man.
Here, they depart from Christianity inasmuch as Christianity believes that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time.
"The Son of Man"
Jesus affirms that he is "the Son of Man." This was his favorite self-designation. The Gospels mention his calling himself the Son of Man some eighty times. William White, Jr., explains that this title reflects Daniel 7:13, where the "Son of Man" is one to whom is given universal and eternal authority, glory, and sovereign dominion. He is one from among men to whom is given divine prerogatives. Since only God can receive such prerogatives, the Son of Man is a God-man (Daniel 10:16). Thus, the Son of Man, Jesus, descended from heaven (John 3:13) and was dependent on God, as He had nowhere to lay His head (Matt. 8:20). He exercises an authoritative and redemptive mission (John 3:14). He is the universal Lord (Matt. 28:18; cf. Dan. 7:13-14) and has total responsibility and authority for judging the world (Matt. 13:41-42; 19:28). (Theological and Grammatical Phrasebook of the Bible, p. 102 [Moody Press, 1984]. Cf. Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus [Eerdmans, 1954].)
So when Jesus calls himself the Son of Man, he does much more than identify himself as having a human nature. He reveals himself as God incarnated as the Last Adam, the true Man, the Man of God's right hand, the Messiah, the King, the Savior, Lord, and Judge! Compare Daniel 7:9-14 and Revelation 1:12-18. It's an amazing claim.
It sure is. It affirms that the OPC believes that Jesus is a lesser God - is totally dependent upon God and therefore is not the God of Christianity, but a messenger or harbinger, much like John the Baptist was for Jesus.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Okay in this section.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
Here we come to a major parting of the ways between the OPC and Christianity. The OPC Church says that:
The resurrection of the dead in general, therefore, is primarily a judicial act of God."[13] Stated simply, the resurrection is not the penultimate event prior to the final judgment; the resurrection is the final judgment.
This little piece of paganism is the source for so many of the nonChristian pronouncements of OPC adherents. Can you imagine a greater departure from the Gospel message of Jesus? Resurrection is a replacement for Judgement and if you are resurrected, you will not go to hell!!!! Now, what about those going to hell? More on that later...
and his kingdom will have no end.
They do agree that Jesus will reign forever.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
See above. The OPC believes that Jesus worships God the Father and the Holy Spirit worships Jesus.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
The OPC really likes its Prophets - if it weren't for Paul, their theology would consist of Isaiah with a splash of Jeremiah.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Absolutely not. "Catholic" is redefined as Calvinist, and the Apostles are irrelevant since they are all long dead.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
The OPC touches on it in several articles on their site, blathering on, and talking around the point, rather than to it, but the final conclusion is that they do not believe that baptism is in any way connected with the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
There are several articles on the OPC website which affirm the resurrection of the dead, and then speak as if it weren't there or it didn't matter. Of course, it might just be the writers' confusion over just who is going to be resurrected (prejudged to salvation) and who isn't (see above). After all if the Calvinists believe that the act of resurrection is a substitute for the Judgement of God, then nobody in hell gets Judged in the Calvinist universe, right? And nowhere in Christianity does it state anything about the resurrection of those Judged to Heaven versus the non resurrection of those Judged to hell. In Calvinism, those prejudged to hell do not get resurrected at all. Cronos, my friend, you are absolutely spot on in that the OPC on its own website brags about its nonChristian beliefs. And its followers would have us believe that it is Christian. Based on what?
Come on over and we'll swap a couple of Guinnesses, and we'll have you praying the Stations of the Cross before Holy Thursday!!! :)
I told you several times. Their methodology is unstated, and their analyses are unsubstantiated. I gave you a point by point refutation of their claims. And it is not a Pew study - it was done by somebody else. You have not proferred another study. I have. You have yet to comment on whether or not you would agree with using that as a basis for discussion; you have also not come up with a scientifically accurate survey yourself.
Because all you are doing is defaming various studies and not telling us what you think they got wrong.
Scientific substantiation has nothing to do with defaming. It has everything to do with accuracy. It is liberals like you that want people to have beliefs on scientifically accurate data, and want to claim knowledge on things of belief.
Go ahead. Find a scientifically accurate survey and we can take the bias out of things and discuss facts rationally. Or, we can simply have you continue to make unsubstantiated claims (oddly enough, that is how the OPC website is constructed, by the way).
When you're 83 and antiCatholic, you come up with whatever argument you can:
lol
The reprobate were judged ab initio, well, even before their initio, so there's really no need for something so redundant as a final judgment and, because of this, no need for a resurrection.
But the place of eternal fire would not have any effect upon a non-body would it? Christianity states that ALL people resurrect, not just the saved. Again, the question comes back to the line from the Creed and the words from Scripture (including Paul) which indicate that all individuals resurrect. I do not begrudge them their beliefs; it just rankles that, as in the case of the Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses, they redefine many of the traditional Christian terms and attempt to make them mean something else entirely.
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.