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

Skip to comments.

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers ^ | 11-29-10 | CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Posted on 11/29/2010 4:02:48 PM PST by STARWISE

For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST

U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied.

The two justices appointed by Obama who had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have!

Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36.

The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after.

IMO, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.

With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.

I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS were that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.

10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx

A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision

The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the Neville Chamberlain supreme court, the great Obama appeaser court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left Saul Alinsky goons and tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early only to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to be much bigger problems later.

History has shown us that over and over. This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't.

Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't.

The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't.

Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse.

The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.

And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies such as Obama and his far left cronies and puppet masters.

Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty.

Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: certifigate; kerchner; naturalborncitizen; obama; scotus
Lord, preserve our Constitution and nation, end the tyranny.
1 posted on 11/29/2010 4:02:58 PM PST by STARWISE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; ..

Court docs - Pg. 15

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf

10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to
file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a
writ of certiorari is denied.


2 posted on 11/29/2010 4:09:20 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

This nation is in 4 stage cancer & now we have ObamaCare.


3 posted on 11/29/2010 4:10:06 PM PST by Digger (If RINO is your selection, then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


4 posted on 11/29/2010 4:20:31 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS were that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari.

I had no idea Mr. Kerchner was that delusional. There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election. That would be the worst type of judicial activism.

5 posted on 11/29/2010 4:21:11 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

The judiciary is totally corrupt like the rest of the country.


6 posted on 11/29/2010 4:21:33 PM PST by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Not even if the constitution was at stake?


7 posted on 11/29/2010 4:25:32 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Digger
Do not despair, we need Obama right where he is. He will not be able to do anything since the Republican hold the House. And his popularity will only drop with the people (I actually think that there will be calls for his impeachment before 2012)and 23 Democrat Senators are up for reelection but only 10 Republicans (You can read the names at the link below) which means that it may be possible to have a filibuster free Congress with veto override ability and a Republican President.
Think of it, the ability to overhaul or get rid of the Tax Code, the IRS, Affirmative Action,Amend the Constitution, get rid of HUD, Education, Reform the Immigrations system, and a lot more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012
8 posted on 11/29/2010 4:26:04 PM PST by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


9 posted on 11/29/2010 4:28:43 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wooly
it may be possible to have a filibuster free Congress with veto override ability

That won't matter, nothing will really change... they want it this way. Unless there is a revolution to the magnitude of what brought this country to be, nothing will ever be any different. EVER.
10 posted on 11/29/2010 4:34:51 PM PST by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

>> I had no idea Mr. Kerchner was that delusional <<

Hey, to paraphrase Madame Babs Boxer, please don’t call him “Mr.”

Please call him “CDR” — since you can be sure he worked hard to get that title.


11 posted on 11/29/2010 4:36:23 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Yep. The pics prove that John Roberts is a pal of 0bama. Come to think of it, I saw a pic of Sarah Palin shaking Joe Biden’s hand. That must mean that she’s in on it too.

First person to quote Vattel gets a tinfoil hat.


12 posted on 11/29/2010 4:36:39 PM PST by Lou Budvis (Refudiate 0bama '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Heaven help us. It would appear that most in the government ‘ruling class’ are spineless cowards now!


13 posted on 11/29/2010 4:39:01 PM PST by penelopesire (Let The Congressional Hearings Begin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Drudge is running the CNN article on decision.
14 posted on 11/29/2010 4:44:17 PM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

In November of 2008 (at the same time that Obama was elected) Fremont, Nebraska voters passed an ordinance requiring landlords to verify the legal residency status of prospective renters before renting to them.

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit asking the courts to undo that election. The court has not in any way balked at that request. A stay was issued immediately to keep that ordinance from going into effect and the parties have until this coming January to get their arguments in line.

Just like the judge in Oklahoma issued a stay until the court decides whether to overturn the voters’ will in their anti-sharia Constitutional amendment.

Just like the NE Supreme Court overturned the will of the voters on Nebraska’s Constitutional amendment disallowing the forced consolidation of schools.

Just as the courts have overturned the will of Iowa and California voters who amended their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage.

Now, were you saying something about a court not being willing to overturn the results of an election? Wherever are you getting that idea from?


15 posted on 11/29/2010 4:45:00 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

If seeing isn’t believing...these are photos of a Coup d’état. And our constituional republic went down not even with a whimper. Time to move to Switzerland, at least their citizens are defending their sovereignty.


16 posted on 11/29/2010 4:45:06 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
I had no idea Mr. Kerchner was that delusional. There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election.

Well heck, I didn't know there was a 2 year statute of limitations on having disregarded the constitution and constitutional matters.
Damn, you learn something new every day. (/sarcasm)

17 posted on 11/29/2010 4:45:42 PM PST by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

>> First person to quote Vattel gets a tinfoil hat. <<

“Nihil est enim illi principi Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat, acceptium, quam concilia coestusque hominum jure sociati, quæ civitates appellantur.”


18 posted on 11/29/2010 4:46:01 PM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
If a president lacks the constitutional qualifications to be president, then there are grounds for impeachment.

However, grounds for impeachment does not necessarily mean there exists courage to impeach.

In January, Speaker Boehner will have the power to at least create a House committee to investigate impeachment. That committee will have the power to subpena any documents that may be necessary to prove whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president.

So, how this whole mess gets resolved will be decided by Speaker Boehner. The courts have made it clear that they are not interested in the issue.

Are you listening, Speaker Boehner?

19 posted on 11/29/2010 4:54:44 PM PST by Walts Ice Pick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Yeah .. CNN reports NOTHING about facts/background
of these cases, but reports on the others and today’s
denial of cert, as Cdr Kerchner noted this am. Not too
transparent or anything ............/S!

~~~~~~~~~~

cfkerchner said...
Now that we’ve been denied CNN covers the case ...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/29/scotus.birther.appeal/

November 29, 2010 8:21 AM

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5326958144121265513


20 posted on 11/29/2010 4:57:17 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
The Supreme Court is no longer supreme. The value of Obama’s two operatives, Sotomayor and Kagan has been demonstrated. There is no more government of laws. The Supreme Court has become a group of “yes men” to the real power base, apparently now centered around George Soros. We have followed the recommendations of McCain-related junior partner, Sarah Herlihy, and eliminated the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen in the interests of "Globalism." Arnold Schwarzenegger can now be president. So can Orly Taitz, Adam Gedan, and George Soros.

The world sees it. That is why we have missle launches off of our coasts, threats from North Korea. The Saudis are a tool who can be eliminated in hours. It is now about power, and the street activist is not in control. We don't really know who that power is, but that must be part of the strategy. We are governed by a secret society, a Shadow Government, which has infiltrated our highest offices and our Supreme Court.

The implications will be discussed, but, for whatever little the Constitution means now, they have dismissed Article II Section 1, as well as the 14th Amendment. Since Obama’s jus soli - born on our soil - and jus sanguinis - born of citizen parents qualifications were not judged grounds for the demand of proof of compliance by citizens. Anyone who can hide his or her background can become president if the media support him. Since voting is entirely unverifiable we do not live in a representative republic, and there is no Consitution to protect those guarantees.

Now we will decide if and how to reclaim respect for the Constitution. Free speech may be next, so identifying local trustworthy groups may be critical to survival. Those actually in power have Constitution to answer to which will protect us. Our rights are not guaranteed.

If we are a majority we are about to find out what that means. Justices can and must be impeached, if we retain enough memory of what our ceremonies represent. Obama isn't a Constitutional President and cannot be impeached, but will stay as a figurehead. The Supreme Court will not honor, defend and protect the Constitution. We must remove the court which dishonored its oath. That means electing only representatives who have the courage to admit that they understand the Constitution. Natural born citizenship is part of our common law. Without men and women of integrity we will continue to fail, and fall as a society.

21 posted on 11/29/2010 5:13:08 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

Too hearbreaking and tragically true.
God save America.


22 posted on 11/29/2010 5:54:44 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

◄-- heartbreaking
23 posted on 11/29/2010 5:56:08 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

I have lost complete faith in what used to be our Federal Government.

THey have now lock, stock and barrel demontrated that they are nothing more than craven cowards.

And thus ends what was the United States of America.


24 posted on 11/29/2010 6:24:34 PM PST by roaddog727 (It's the Constitution, Stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: roaddog727

I echo your emotions ... took a scheming village
to get us here. And I sense it’ll take God’s hand
and many courageous patriots .. again .. and much
pain to bring America back. Keep the faith — God
will not be mocked. The Angels are on the side of
righteousness .. keep praying.


25 posted on 11/29/2010 6:51:14 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; butterdezillion

Read Spaulding’s comment.

Your twin in principle!


26 posted on 11/29/2010 8:19:08 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
Nihil est enim illi principi Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat, acceptium, quam concilia coestusque hominum jure sociati, quæ civitates appellantur.

What does that mean, please? I cannot find a translation that I can make sense of. thanks.

27 posted on 11/29/2010 8:47:10 PM PST by KarenMarie (NEVER believe anything coming out of DC until it's been denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding

I find myself asking “Where do we go from here?”

I really do think that Soros has threatened to collapse the world economy if the guardians of the US resist his coup. Until we get our economy away from the edge where Soros has enough power to send it tumbling, Soros will call all the shots, and not necessarily because everybody wants to be his puppet, but because they don’t want to send the US over the edge.

It may be a very, very good thing that the body the R’s have control of is the one from which all appropriations have to originate. If they can just refuse to fund anything but the necessities maybe we can get control of the deficit and get a secure enough footing that Soros can’t hold the nation’s infrastructure hostage.

I’d sure love to see Kagan and Sotomayor impeached, if the courts won’t ever allow a QW to get rid of them. They definitely should have recused themselves from this case, since they have both financial and personal interests in the outcome of it.


28 posted on 11/29/2010 8:51:47 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KarenMarie
For there is nothing to him, the prince of all this to God, who governs the world, which indeed in of the earth, is more acceptable, than the right of those assemblages and combinations of men joined together, which we call States.

"Coetusque" was misspelt and probably led to your translation difficulty.

29 posted on 11/29/2010 9:23:05 PM PST by wittyone (Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Now, were you saying something about a court not being willing to overturn the results of an election? Wherever are you getting that idea from?

Actually, what I said was, "There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election."

Citing liberal judges engaged in judicial activism are perfect examples of what conservatives hate about the current state of the judiciary. Ignoring the will of the people. Are you suggesting the Supreme Court follow the example of those activist courts you cited and undo the last presidential election?

Other than you, I have asked several frequent birthers to name the Supreme Court Justices they thought might be receptive to the birther lawsuits. The answer was always the conservative members of the court. Anyone who has ever read Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts understands these men are philosophically opposed to interjecting themselves into electoral politics unless they absolutely have to.

I've never understood conservatives pushing the Supreme Court to overturn an election. It would be establishing a horrible precedence...one that would likely be used by the (Democrat Party) Trial Lawyers every 2 years to rid themselves of annoying conservative office holders.

30 posted on 11/29/2010 10:47:31 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Retired Intelligence Officer
Not even if the constitution was at stake?

The Constitution has a well defined remedy for a defective President.

31 posted on 11/29/2010 11:03:56 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
Well heck, I didn't know there was a 2 year statute of limitations on having disregarded the constitution...

Dude didn't knock off a liquor store...He was elected by a majority of voters. Conservatives should not want the Supreme Court deciding presidential elections halfway through the term.

32 posted on 11/29/2010 11:14:27 PM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Dude didn't knock off a liquor store...

I can't believe you're really that simple minded about what has occurred.
I repeat, is there a statute of limitations on the constitutional issue of OBummer's eligibility?
Also, where is it written in the constitution that if he got over half the vote, it voids the constitution's eligibility clause and the rule of law?

33 posted on 11/30/2010 12:13:49 AM PST by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Drudge must have a sense of humor. He is running the article under a Wikileaks headline that says drip, drip ,drip
34 posted on 11/30/2010 3:47:12 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: KarenMarie; TexasConservative

>> What does that mean, please? <<

I dunno. I don’t understand Latin. I just wanted to provide a quote from Vattel, so as to earn my tinfoil hat.


35 posted on 11/30/2010 6:39:38 AM PST by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun
WTF does “statute of limitations” have to do with any of this?

I am not suggesting Obama can't be convicted of a crime because the statute of limitations has expired. Sheeeesh!

While I believe most of the birther conspiracies range from misguided to ridiculous, there has always been only two possible, albeit implausible outcomes; impeachment, or the Supreme Court somehow invalidating the last presidential election. There was a legal window of “ripeness” for contesting the validity of the 2008 election (Ankeny v Indiana), but the further we got from the election results, the less likely a judicial remedy.

2 years and 80+ court cases later and still nothing. The courts have spoken loudly and repeatedly. They have no solution to offer. As a conservative, I am extremely grateful the judicial branch has recused itself from what is clearly a legislative issue.

As far as impeachment goes...since most of the Republican candidates were uncomfortable even talking about their kid's birthday for fear they would be mistakenly branded a birther, I seriously doubt there is much political support for birtherism hearings in the newly elected House.

36 posted on 11/30/2010 7:50:54 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: opentalk; LucyT; rxsid; hoosiermama

I read the CNN article linked by Drudge. Actually it was not the venom i expected. It did state several facts about NBC issue.
It included an extensive quote by Apuzzo. This article had a totally different tone than previous ones. Can only guess why....


37 posted on 11/30/2010 7:54:45 AM PST by urtax$@work (The best ki,nd of memorial is a Burning Memorial.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

It is the job of the court to overturn unconstitutional elections. That’s why we have a Constitution; there are some things that need more than a 51% vote of the few people who actually vote, because some things are meant to be permanent. That’s why it takes so much more work to amend the Constitution - because the provisions of the Constitution are not supposed to be undone by a simple majority in an election somewhere.

If they want to change the natural born citizenship requirement for the POTUS they can’t do it through a simple one-time vote by 51% of the population which doesn’t even know they’re voting to undo the Constitution. They have to do it by the process the Constitution sets out, which is much more difficult because the Constitution is intended to be more permanent and stable than the whims of the electorate on a particular day.

Conservative justices are those who seek to CONSERVE - to preserve what is precious, and from a judicial standpoint that is the US Constitution. You dang right conservatives would overturn an election that would negate the Constitution. That’s precisely what the SCOTUS exists to do. That’s precisely why the CONSTITUTION exists. This is basic 8th grade social studies material.


38 posted on 11/30/2010 7:59:10 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
And now for some related, good news:


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

39 posted on 11/30/2010 8:07:35 AM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
WTF does “statute of limitations” have to do with any of this?

In your defense of the usurper, you're the one who brought up an imaginary time limit thing in your post 5 con-man, not me.

Con-man stated:
"There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election."

You are essentially stating that since OBummer and the Rats have gotten away with it for 2 years it trumps the constitution's eligibility clause.
Guess the supreme court can't rule on constitutional issues that are over 2 years old, especially if they aren't politically correct.

40 posted on 11/30/2010 11:15:09 AM PST by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

This proves what I suspected, one of the so-called conservative Justices has been subverted. Thomas is the obvious choice, what with ‘avoiding the issue’ and protecting his homeboy. Too obvious actually, I don’t think it is him and therefore not Scalia either. Alito is just a follower which leaves... CJ Roberts, the man who is liable and responsible for swearing the usurper in. So how can you use the courts to take down the top Judge in America? You can’t.


41 posted on 11/30/2010 2:10:35 PM PST by 83Vet4Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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