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

Skip to comments.

JUSTIA.COM CAUGHT RED HANDED HIDING REFERENCES TO MINOR v. HAPPERSETT IN PUBLISHED SCOTUS OPINIONS
Natural Born Citizen ^ | July 1, 2011 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 07/01/2011 4:01:29 PM PDT by SatinDoll

The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.

I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).

I have published my complete investigation into this fraud perpetrated by Justia.com – including snapshots and evidence collected from the Way Back Machine at the Internet Archive – in the comments section of my previous report, THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY. My investigation was triggered by a reader’s comment regarding Boyd. The comment was on a separate issue. But I then noticed that the Boyd case, as currently published by Justia.com, made reference to Minor v. Happersett without properly naming the case.

***************************************************

This is beyond shocking. Somebody, back in 2008, just prior to the election, ordered these revisions and saw to their execution. This is direct tampering with United States law. And it is evidence that Minor v. Happersett was known to be a huge stumbling block to POTUS eligibility.

It confirms that Minor v. Happersett was seen as a dangerous US Supreme Court precedent which construed the natural-born citizen clause of Article 2 Section 1 to make only those persons born in the US to citizen parents (plural)… eligible to be President.

According to binding US Supreme Court precedent, Obama is not eligible to be President. And we are obviously very late coming to this legal truth. Somebody at Justia.com tried to control and alter our awareness by hiding important Supreme Court references to Minor dating back to 2008. This is smoking gun proof of tampering. Please read my full report here.

There needs to be an investigation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous; Politics; Reference; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; birthcertificate; certifigate; corruption; cwii; elections; eligibility; fraud; justia; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; president; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last
To: Jeff Winston

Bushpilot1 proves your point with his posts to you in this thread, far better than anything you could ever say.


101 posted on 07/01/2011 11:31:25 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The Mods said the poster(Jeff Winston) was to much bs. What is bs?

1. Foolish, deceitful language.

2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.

3. Insolent talk or behavior.

4. Speak foolishly or insolently.

5. Attempt to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense.


102 posted on 07/01/2011 11:32:22 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“I must conclude birthers are too stupid to read.”

Your buddy Mr. Rogers making rational arguments in the thread Butterdzillion just posted a link to:

“Only an idiot would believe a case involving a woman’s right to vote under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a binding statement of the meaning of NBC.”

“But then, someone who can read more than one sentence will not be a birther.”

“any court would laugh at you.”


103 posted on 07/01/2011 11:38:27 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“That being the case, I can certainly forgive you for having lumped all those you disagree with into the category of “Obama apologists.” :-)

I’ll do my best to refrain from personal attack and ridicule, and hope that those who share your point of view will do the same as well.”

You are right and I will try to do better in the future as well.


104 posted on 07/01/2011 11:41:44 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998; bushpilot1; butterdezillion; fireman15

Thanks.

By the way, I would like to wish everyone - and yes, this includes you too, bushpilot1 - a happy 4th of July.

235 years have gone by since the Founding Fathers wrote a letter to King George and told him we were gone and NEVER coming back.

And TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE YEARS LATER, we are still here. We may be troubled, but we are still here, and we are still...

...the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

To all: a Happy 4th of July.


105 posted on 07/01/2011 11:43:38 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (Run, Sarah... Run, and win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: fireman15
I’ll do my best to refrain from personal attack and ridicule, and hope that those who share your point of view will do the same as well.”

Trying to sign off, but must make one final comment, to add to my previous statement:

I’ll do my best to refrain from personal attack and ridicule, and hope that others who share my point of view will do the same as well.

Again: a Happy 4th to you and yours. Stay safe, and have a great weekend!

106 posted on 07/01/2011 11:48:29 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (Run, Sarah... Run, and win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

You posted a thread in an attempt to discredit Attorney Leo Donofrio. The thread was pulled. The person discredited was Jeff Winston.

There are no happy 4ths as long as we have an usurper in the WH.


107 posted on 07/02/2011 12:35:55 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

I just wandered by this thread a few minutes ago, and it sure appears to me like you and Jeff Winston are obot trolls. I can’t prove that, but if it walks like a duck...well you know the rest!

JC


108 posted on 07/02/2011 2:32:00 AM PDT by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
And philman 63 has shown...
You don't know either?! If you're going to mention somebody then do them the courtesy of pinging them to your reply.
And I know I'm consider bass ackwards by some, but come on! 63 instead of 36?!
109 posted on 07/02/2011 2:56:06 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
He’s lying. I just linked you to the Justia pages, which has the references to Minor that he claims the “EVILLZZZ CONSPIWACY” took out.

Her point is that the page might have been edited since 2008 to put the missing material back in. Apparently Donofrio has screen caps of the way the page looked at the time.

BTW, do you have any evidence to back up your theory that he doctored the screen shots?

110 posted on 07/02/2011 5:24:05 AM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty
Why is it that no one in the media or politics or anywhere, just says this simple truth?

Because nobody outside of the birther circus buys this manufactured definition of eligibility.

111 posted on 07/02/2011 5:46:21 AM PDT by Gena Bukin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

It just keeps clicking and won’t go to any page, even when I click on “Impatient?”


112 posted on 07/02/2011 6:43:12 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

What Donofrio is saying is that they took out the title of the case so that those who would search for references to Minor v Happersett would not be able to see the different places where it was used as precedent in other cases. Donofrio has recently said that the two-citizen-parent definition for “natural born citizen” is established precedent, and cases that cited Minor v Happersett as precedent on questions of citizenship would support that.

What Donofrio is saying now is that back in early 2008 somebody realized that the Minor v Happersett references would prove that there is already an NBC definition established as precedent so they wanted to make it as difficult as possible for people to find out when Minor v Happersett was cited as precedent. So they had Justia take out that title so it wouldn’t show up in a search.


113 posted on 07/02/2011 6:49:50 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Here y'go ... enjoy
114 posted on 07/02/2011 6:50:06 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
This makes me wonder again if e-books are such a great idea.

Just think of what entities like google could accidentally leave out of an edition...

115 posted on 07/02/2011 6:53:15 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The fact that you have to post a personal attack in the first place shows that you can’t win on the basis of the facts.

*YOU* cannot win on the basis of facts. Here's an example from some days earlier.

----------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Winston said:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790,... "and that the children of citizens 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.

If you can shoot down my reasoning, you're certainly welcome to have a go at it. I doubt that you will, since you repeatedly completely refused, about half a dozen times, to respond at all to my analysis of Wong Kim Ark. But, there it is.

------------------------------------------------------- My response: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:29:13 AM

I am very glad that you quoted the Naturalization act of 1790. That means you accept it as part of your argument, therefore you will have to accept ALL of it! It goes on further to say:

"Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose FATHERS have never been resident in the United States:"

As you yourself point out, this act was produced a mere 3 years after the adoption of the constitution (actually just 1 year) , and the Members of Congress were pretty much the same people as the Original Delegates. This act gives a clear insight to what they were thinking regarding citizenship status of the children of Foreign Fathers.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------

And what did you do? Rather than addressing the point, you ran away and whined that I was uncivil towards you. After dealing with you a few times, it's a wonder that anyone IS civil towards you.

116 posted on 07/02/2011 6:58:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Hmm, works for me. Can I ask what browser you're using? Try this one.

The snapshot I posted is from 6/11/09.

You can also browse back to 2008 and view the Apr 24th snapshot, where there is a reference to the Cohens case and then look at the June 23rd snapshot, where this reference is removed. This is exactly the time frame when the reference was removed from the case Leo cites.

Nothing to see here, folks.

117 posted on 07/02/2011 7:00:18 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin
Because nobody outside of the birther circus buys this manufactured definition of eligibility.

So? They think an Amendment to grant citizenship to slaves makes it legal to kill unborn children. What do THEY know?

The modern legal system has become nothing but a clown circus. It gets stuff wrong all the time.

118 posted on 07/02/2011 7:05:00 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

I am not commenting on Leo himself, and the political or religious stance of a person doesn’t tell me whether or not their evidence or argument is valid. At this point I have no way of knowing which of the researchers and/or lawyers are genuine and which are disinformation agents throwing out false stuff just to throw a monkey wrench in the works for those who are genuine. All I can go by is the actual evidence.

Donofrio was immediately accused of forging a screenshot, and anybody who didn’t believe Donofrio had forged the screenshot was immediately accused of not using logic or being interested in evidence or practicing due diligence. That’s not cool with me. I have seen no evidence thus far that Donofrio forged that screenshot, and I HAVE found evidence that what he said the “current” page was is in a Google-cached page for June 21, 2011. The person who accused Donofrio of forging a screenshot has presented no evidence to support that claim and has not apologized for making a false accusation (based sheerly on speculation that it COULD HAVE been forged) either.

Philman 63 has said he/she can’t see the latest date that the page was revised. Somebody else said they could see it but didn’t say what the date was.

So now the story switches to trying to show that it’s not unusual that the text that was entered correctly in 2006 and altered in early 2008 to get rid of the reference was now changed back to accurate the day after Donofrio posted about the manipulation, because it isn’t the only instance where that happened.

Kleon says he’s seen a Way Back Machine page showing that it happened elsewhere. He’s even posted a direct link that is supposed to take me to that page. But my computer won’t go to it. Apparently all this “evidence” is like the mythical unicorn that only appears to true believers. lol. And that in itself is something that is so common for me that it’s ho-hum already. I’ve been dealing with not being allowed to see stuff for a long, long time. But it’s not supposed to be this way. I’ve even had people tell me I must be crazy because I simply note the “difficulties” and/or anomalies I constantly battle on my computer. Stuff like e-mails that I watch my computer receive - watch the blue bars show the progress on receiving it - but then after it’s been received it doesn’t show up anywhere in my mail folders. Or the e-mails I receive from people referring to prior e-mails they had sent but I never received.

Donofrio has pointed out what he believes is a manipulation. I have seen so many manipulations that nothing would surprise me. I have seen people reported as dead who are not dead, dates listed for published obituaries that were never published - claims which show up right at the time I was discussing those people in “secure” places online. I have seen materials pop in and out of availability on Way BAck Machine. I have seen intelius reports on people who don’t exist. I’ve seen the HDOH lie on a regular basis. I watched them hide the Administrative Rules that are required to be posted publicly at all times, and only post it as required after the Lt Gov was specifically asked if that is his responsibility to see that the agencies comply with that law. I’ve seen SCOTUS dockets disappear without explanation. I’ve seen Google pop information in and out of visibility.

I’ve also seen things I thought were manipulations that turned out to be misunderstandings.

The whole situation forces a person to have a “wait and see” approach. Which is precisely what Obama needs people to be forced to have, since people who aren’t sure of anything aren’t willing to stick their neck out for anything. It’s the ultimate post-modern existence; nobody can know anything so everybody lives in permanent limbo. While we’re all debating what the meaning of “is” is, Obama is tearing the country’s foundations limb from limb.

Disgusting.


119 posted on 07/02/2011 7:31:54 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Philman 63 has said he/she can’t see the latest date that the page was revised. Somebody else said they could see it but didn’t say what the date was.

As I said before, that's not going to tell you anything, because the content on the right (links to facebook profiles, etc) is always being updated. No matter when you click it, it will say it was updated just minutes ago.

120 posted on 07/02/2011 7:58:28 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: fireman15; Jeff Winston

This thread is a perfect example of what you describe. Immediately we had a poster saying that he/she had “checked it out” and because Justia has the corrected version posted right now, Donofrio must have forged the screenshot; anybody who had been interested in facts, logic, and evidence would have seen this immediately and rejected Donofrio’s “conspiracy theory”.

When that was shown wrong by the Google-cached page, the argument changed to saying it was a system-wide problem that just got solved yesterday. First an example that was apples and oranges because the text of the decision clearly never did include the titles of the cases. Then an example from Way Back Machine that my computer won’t let me go to. A big waste of my time. And again, accompanied by claims that a person would have to be wilfully blind or lazy in order to not realize that Donofrio’s claim is crazy.

There are people on both sides of the issue who attack people rather than dig into facts, and there are debunked claims that show up over and over again on both sides of the eligibility issue. I suppose that is just human nature.

But the game you described is played out in every eligibility thread, usually by the same people. As long as the game is still being played and people are kept busy sorting out the meaning of the word “is”, Obama has what he needs to be able to continue destroying this nation.

The Bible says that where there is no clear signal the troops can’t be called into battle. As long as Obama’s people can keep everything blurry, they’ve won. I’m sick of blurry. If everything is blurry it’s fudge-able, and that means that we can’t count on anything. Nothing is solid. The rule of law is blurry, and facts are blurry; that’s what the Obot disinformation army is all about. The whole running of this country is a big debate. When a government agency breaks the laws/rules we have to wait and see how they will try to justify it, and the game goes on and on and on. When we catch a crook who’s in the country illegally, we have to debate what to do, and in the end the crook goes free to rape, murder, or steal from somebody else.

It’s crazy. It’s absolutely crazy. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways, and this nation is unstable in all its ways. Everything we’ve built the nation on is up for debate now. We have no Constitution. We have no rule of law. We have no courts. We have no evidentiary standards. We have no genuine news reporters. We have no scientific method or peer review; it’s all politicized, based on federal research grants. We are one big post-modern brain fart, and unless something major changes very soon, the nation will dissipate from a lack of genuine substance just like a fart. I doubt we’ll even be able to collect enough of the remains in order to give America a proper burial. I guess that’s appropriate; America will die of post-modernism and her ashes will scatter on the wind because nobody even knew what or where her body ever was. Bah!


121 posted on 07/02/2011 7:59:25 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

My apologies. I am notoriously bad with names, and I forgot to ping you. I’m sorry.


122 posted on 07/02/2011 8:06:36 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I do try to avoid dealing with you, and I'm also trying, literally, to get on the road. But here, what you're implying is a mangling of the law, so I'm going to respond.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

And it seems to be a good indication of the degree of scholarship on your side of the debate.

Here's the context.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Happy 4th!

123 posted on 07/02/2011 8:23:13 AM PDT by Jeff Winston (Run, Sarah... Run, and win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I believe you’ve described an assault against our nation. The following is a description, found at Wikipedia, of the expression “coup d’état” and what it means.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A coup d’état, or plural coups d’état — also known as a coup, putsch, and overthrow — is the sudden, extrajudicial deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment — typically the military — to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds if the usurpers establish their dominance when the incumbent government fails to prevent or successfully resist their consolidation of power. If the coup neither fully fails nor achieves overall success, the attempted coup d’etat is likely to lead to a civil war.

Typically, a coup d’état uses the extant government’s power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sure sounds like an apt description of what we’re experiencing.


124 posted on 07/02/2011 8:39:51 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?

125 posted on 07/02/2011 9:24:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

Allowing someone else to control the source of your information is never good.

The Nazis burned books. That fact should never be forgotten.


126 posted on 07/02/2011 10:04:02 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
What Donofrio is saying is that they took out the title of the case so that those who would search for references to Minor v Happersett would not be able to see the different places where it was used as precedent in other cases.

Fair enough, I can see that argument. It doesn't address why they didn't expunge the references from the other law archives, like FindLaw. And it ignores the fact that the citation in Boyd does not quote the definition of NBC from Minor, so someone looking for that wouldn't have found Boyd anyway. And anyone looking for cases dealing with citizenship and eligibility would have found their way to Boyd and then, via the link, to Minor. The fact that this alleged deletion would have had such a negligible effect still makes me doubt it was an intentional attempt to scrub info, but I know you're a collector of anomalies, so I can see why this appeals to you.

127 posted on 07/02/2011 10:04:48 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Thank you. Now I can do some checking. Random checking of cases. Just changing the volume number randomly I stumbled across this one (Snowden v Hughes) at http://web.archive.org/web/20080311023329/http://supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html ) On page 7 (or at least I guess that’s a page number)it said this on March 11, 2008:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

Every case there has a title of some kind listed, although the Slaughterhouse cases are not referenced individually because they were never given individual titles.

On July 24, 2008 it said this:

“to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79; Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525, 250 U. S. 538; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 259 U. S. 539; Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U. S. 83, 309 U. S. 90-93. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621, 193 U. S. 632; Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U. S. 277, 302 U. S. 283, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.”

The reference to the Slaughterhouse cases has just the number reference rather than “In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 74, 83 U. S. 79”. But of all the other cases, the only one that had anything altered was Minor v Happersett. This is not an across-the-board, site-wide situation. Minor v Happersett was the only case that got its title taken off.

The page at Justia now has that corrected. Just for kicks I did the same type of Google search that had allowed me to show that as of June 21st the page that Donofrio screen-capped was exactly as Donofrio said it was. I did this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1003&bih=594&q=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&oq=%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers%2C+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3545l6700l0l3l3l0l2l0l0l151l151l0.1l1 . It gave me a listing of a cached entry for that page, showing that the last time that page was cached it had the term “”like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” (lacking the “Minor v Happersett” title). But when I clicked on that link to see the cached page (so I could see when was the last date it was cached) I got a screen saying, “
Your search - cache:MjgJVAUeE2IJ:supreme.justia.com/us/321/1/case.html “like the right to vote for the election of state officers, 88 U. S. 170-178” - did not match any documents. “

But the original search I did included other sites that matched the search terms, including the one that is cached at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j2C9BJ_FrsQJ:www.clubjuris.com/usa/us_supremecourt/321/1/case.php+%22like+the+right+to+vote+for+the+election+of+state+officers,+88+U.+S.+170-178%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com . That was cached on June 5, 2011.

So not only can we see that Minor v Happersett was treated differently than the 5 other titled cases cited right next to it, we can see that Google denies it has the cached Justia site that matches those search terms even though they listed the cached site when I did the search.

Sort of like the 1960-64 birth index that has Virginia Sunahara’s name listed, but the HDOH denies that they have a birth record for her.

What this says to me is that they are all screwing with us and then accusing us of being crazy. Not cool in my book, nor in the book of anybody with a conscience. But that shows us the post-modern psy-ops that Google, Justia, the HDOH, and other entities are pulling on the entire world in order to cover for Obama - to keep us all chasing the little inconsistencies and debating the definition of “is” all over again multiple times... while Obama destroys the foundations of this country and the ability of anybody to know ANYTHING.

I’m sick of this crap. It’s anarchy. Nobody can know anything. Rules, laws - heck, even words themselves - don’t mean anything. It’s all just one big blurry mash of “nothing matters” - no foundations, nothing we can count on, and the only “truth” that matters is what the media can get to “stick”. We’re running military operations in Libya to try to kill GAdaffi and his followers, but it’s not “force” - and even if it is “force” we don’t know whether the War Powers Act that Obama violated is Constitutional in the first place. If it’s not, then not only would Obama need Congressional approval - he’d need a declaration of war. But Obama says he doesn’t have to answer any questions and everybody in his administration has flipped the bird at Congressional subpoenas and gotten away with it so far.... so nobody can make anything “stick” anyway.

This is utter madness. A nation cannot survive this. We are going 250 miles an hour around a curve rated for 15 mph. Whoever is driving this car is on a death wish and committing vehicular homicide on the nation sitting in the passenger seat.


128 posted on 07/02/2011 10:19:17 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

Comment #129 Removed by Moderator

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Maybe they don’t yet control all of the legal sources.

The point isn’t whether a person would eventually get to Minor v Happersett, but that a person wouldn’t be able to know all the different places where the logic of Minor was used as a precedent.

But the even bigger point as of now is this whole thing that nobody knows what source is going to do what manipulations. And when a source does a manipulation and gets caught then the sources just need to work together to make it appear as if there are other non-Obama-related instances where the same thing happened - in order to frame honest people as crazy. Way Back Machine is a Google thing, and in a recent post I showed that Google is screwing with us too. Somebody accused Donofrio of manipulating a screenshot. I doubt Donofrio has the ability to do that, but Google and Way Back Machine certainly would - and Google has shown a willingness to screw around with us.

They’re trying to create a disconnect from reality. If you knew that Google, Justia, the SCOTUS docket, etc were all willing to screw around, exactly what would you put past them? How would you find information you could trust?

People are talking about why people believe in “conspiracy theories”. My question for everybody is why - when we’ve seen the manipulations and outright lies by SO MANY DIFFERENT SUPPOSEDLY-TRUSTWORTHY SOURCES (including multiple government agencies at all different levels) - we should believe the supposedly-credible sources. And if we have nobody we can trust to tell us the truth and not mess around with the information, what’s left? We’re all left to our own ways of trying to figure things out. Anything goes.

That’s why this is serious business. In the past I’ve talked about the implications for the rule of law, and that is critical. But these people are delving even deeper. What they are doing are psy-ops like the military and/or cops use to break down the resistance of an enemy. Obama recognizes that people who care about truth are enemies. He has to disable us by getting us to a point where we can’t know truth, nobody can do anything about it even if we know it, and we are so divided and distracted that we don’t stop him before he destroys this country.

He’s trying to create scenarios where people will shut out anything that is said because they can’t know if it’s true anyway. That’s what disinformation agents are for - to create a situation where nobody can trust anybody else because we have no way of knowing who is true and who is jerking us around, and wouldn’t have time to dig through it all even if we COULD find out the truth.

IOW, he’s trying to come between every person and every other person. Now THAT is invasive. It’s corrosive. It is literally mind control on a massive scale. And until we recognize the level to which it is being done and actually find some consequences for those who do it, it will continue to be very effective. It’s the equivalent of setting a stink-bomb in the jewelry store so everybody gets so disgusted they leave, and the place is free to be ransacked.


130 posted on 07/02/2011 10:53:19 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Jeff Winston; freedomwarrior998; Bikkuri; warsaw44; ColdOne; wintertime; Fred Nerks; ...


Lower right hand corner...all the way at the bottom.
Have a Happy Day! Now who put that on there?


You [Jeff Winston]posted a thread in an attempt to discredit Attorney Leo Donofrio. The thread was pulled. The person discredited was Jeff Winston.
Pulled on 06/29/2011 5:46:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Too much bs and whining by the poster”

freedomwarrior998: "Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you."

Really 0bot?

Donofrio has shots from the Way Back Machine showing it was like that since 2008. So from 2008 until at least ten days ago the reference was edited out, and sometime within the last 10 days (Donofrio says within the last day or two, depending on when he posted his analysis) it was changed.

So all the big garbage about Donofrio forging the screenshot is shown to be wrong. The left ALWAYS projects onto others what they themselves do. Always. Predictable and pathetic.




There is a familiar pattern taking place lately on threads relating to Obama’s eligibility. First the Obots attack and belittle other freepers, then they post some bogus links that most people won't bother to follow. It is pure Alinsky... directly from the Obama play book.


131 posted on 07/02/2011 11:18:11 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; philman_36; Red Steel; Jeff Winston
Whine pulled
132 posted on 07/02/2011 12:01:59 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
;-)
133 posted on 07/02/2011 12:45:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?


Seem simple enough to understand, especially for some of these anti-Birthers who have been haunting these threads for a very long time.

134 posted on 07/02/2011 12:56:54 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Reflexively screaming “OBOT” at anyone who doesn’t buy into your conspiracy theories, only makes you look more delusional. Just sayin’.

For your information, one can be against Obama and his socialist policies, and work for his legitimate defeat in the next election, without buying into Lizard People, UFOs, FEMA Camps, Black Helicopters, and other assorted nonsense.

If all you have is “OBOT” then you really don’t have much at all.


135 posted on 07/02/2011 1:00:43 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But of all the other cases, the only one that had anything altered was Minor v Happersett. This is not an across-the-board, site-wide situation. Minor v Happersett was the only case that got its title taken off.

I think this might have to do with the fact it was hotlinked while the others were not. The other example I posted, from Miranda, had the name of Cohens hotlinked and was removed while the non-hotlinked names were unaffected. That doesn't appear to be the case with all the links on the site, but it's certainly not confined to the cases Donofrio is freaking out over. In Miranda, the name of Cohens v. Virginia disappears and reappears from the text at exactly the same times as this supposed scrubbing of Minor.

136 posted on 07/02/2011 2:00:56 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

137 posted on 07/02/2011 2:38:13 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Maybe they don’t yet control all of the legal sources.

I don't regard any tampering done by the people who administrate Justia.com as proof of influence from the administration. More like, Most Lawyer types are already partisan liberal democrats, and some of those working on Justia noticed that this information was inconvenient, so they did their partisan duty and made it go away during the discussion of his eligibility.

It is no different from the News and Media people (Union Members all from Liberal districts like New York and Los Angeles.) using their positions of influence to spike stories which demonstrate that Obama is a complete idiot, and pushing stories which make their political opponents look like Nuts,Kooks, Idiots and Racisists.

In other words, it isn't coordinated, it is the natural consequence of letting anyone with a liberal bent near the controls of any sort of power or influence.

138 posted on 07/02/2011 3:37:38 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Seem simple enough to understand, especially for some of these anti-Birthers who have been haunting these threads for a very long time.

Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

It is my firm belief we are looking at willful ignorance, not the honest kind. Whether it is motivated by personal interest or personal preference, or just simple bull headedness it has the same effect. Some would call it "Cognitive dissonance."

Some people, having made up their minds early and with little information, have decided that they would rather see the country reduced to rubble before they admit the "birthers" are right. They hate us worse than the enemy because we had the audacity to dare challenge the illogic of their early made opinions. To them, it transcends political value, and directly challenges them on a personal level.

139 posted on 07/02/2011 3:48:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Citations of Minor v Happersett made it to the Supreme Court of the United States for Justices’ conferences in the Petitions for Writs of Certiorari submitted for both Kerchner v Obama (Apuzzo) and Hollister v Soetoro, et. al.(Hemenway).


140 posted on 07/02/2011 4:41:52 PM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

butterdezillion opined: “At this point I have no way of knowing which of the researchers and/or lawyers are genuine and which are disinformation agents throwing out false stuff just to throw a monkey wrench in the works for those who are genuine.”

There are ways. For example, look at what people were saying *before* the particular individual was at issue. Which of the “researchers and/or lawyers” from whom we now here were, before 2008, arguing that for a native-born citizen to eligible for the presidency, both of his or her parents had to be citizens? Near as I can tell, the answer is zero.

Edition after edition of Blacks Law Dictionary defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in the jurisdiction of a national government. The sixth edition included, “i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” Who said that was wrong, and said so before they needed reasons to deny that Obama can be president?

Could this have been from o-bot disinformation agents: “It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.” [Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).] Barack Obama would have been seven years old at the time.

Obama was a college undergrad when the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit considered illegal alien Sebastian Diaz-Salazar’s petition to stay deportation, and wrote: “The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.” [Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service ]

How about: “It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).] Obama was still unknown, as he first made news when elected president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990.

Plus, who considered Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo to be legal scholars before this Obama eligibility stuff? If they were not such before, how could they be now? They’ve gotten nothing through peer review and in court they’ve face-planted every time.


141 posted on 07/02/2011 5:48:19 PM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan; butterdezillion
Obama was a college undergrad when the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit considered illegal alien Sebastian Diaz-Salazar’s petition to stay deportation, and wrote: “The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.” [Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) http://openjurist.org/700/f2d/1156/diaz-salazar-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service ]

This deportation case is absolutely worthless to the OBot cause. President Carter appointed comrade judge Cudahy who put that in his opinion and who only regurgitated the illegal immigrant lawyer's lamination. If you had been paying attention in the last 2 1/2 years here, you would have likely saw that this bit is totally unsupported obit dicta. And BTW, the illegal immigrant was deported despite the nonsense by circuit judge Cudahy.

142 posted on 07/02/2011 6:21:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BladeBryan

““It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]”

It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.


143 posted on 07/02/2011 6:26:28 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; Brown Deer

With lyrics

{;^)

144 posted on 07/02/2011 7:17:23 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll; BladeBryan
When all you have is what you have, then that's all you have.
That's all Bryan has...repeatedly!
145 posted on 07/02/2011 7:24:34 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

It is her opinion, NOT settled law. I’ve already told you once, she is a left-wing shill.


She does have some Supreme Court decisions that back her up.
The Supreme Court has equated “native born” with “natural born” on a few different occasions. However what is “settled law” can always be revisited by a later Supreme Court.

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 (1964)
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.” Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 658.

In Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 22 (1913), the Court ruled:
“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, 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101;Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827.

and in Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, (1939):
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries, and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of 331*331 the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twenty-one years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be `right reason’, and I think it is law.”

and also, United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, (1929):
“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens. All alike owe allegiance to the Government, and the Government owes to them the duty of protection. These are reciprocal obligations and each is a consideration for the other.” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22.


146 posted on 07/02/2011 9:30:11 PM PDT by jh4freedom (Mr. "O" has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Placemark.


147 posted on 07/02/2011 9:39:52 PM PDT 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 145 | View Replies]

To: jh4freedom

Hello, noobie.

If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?

Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.

* * * * * * * * * * *

AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY

INTRODUCTION

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American [sic],” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.

...Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ms.Herlihy, in the title and body of her paper, gave the game away, noobie.

This is about destroying the United State of America so as to establish a socialist utopia under the rubric of Globalism.

All those items you mentioned are meaningless, because there is a huge gulf between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.

You can find the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ as recognized by the Feds here:

U.S.Citizenship & Immigration Services - Citizenship

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

(There is no mention of natural born citizenship because it isn’t a statutory type of citizenship.)

Natural born citizen ONLY appears in U.S.law, specifically in the U.S.Constitution, as an eligibility requirement to be President. It is an eligibility requirement, like being age 35 or being a resident in the U.S. for the past fifteen years.

No one has the right to be President. One must be eligible.


148 posted on 07/02/2011 10:28:05 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: fireman15

Well...

Perhaps the term “truckloads” was inaccurate. Regardless, it remains true that Amazon had too many for me to buy them all, so I settled on two for my library.

I posted a few links for you because you couldn’t seem to find any on your own. It just so happened that the ones I picked out ran from the late 1800’s to the 40’s. I disagree that this is a problem, especially since one of those textbooks (Advanced Civics; The Spirit, the Form, and the Functions of the American Government) is still in print, and I assume in use, today. I bought the 19-0-something edition because that one struck my fancy.

Why would textbooks from the 1800’s through the 40’s be less valid anyway?

Now, back to the question...

It is entirely possible that some folks were told in school that an NBC required two citizen parents. Just as some were told that the 2nd Amendment only applied to State militias and the 1st amendment was all about the separation of church and state. Or that ‘Separate but equal’ was just dandy. They may have even had a civics text that said so.

But as I stated in my post that set this off:

“If this were actually the case, it should then be a relatively simple matter to produce a civics textbook from the era with this information.

Yet I understand that no one has been able to do this.”

I stand by that statement.


149 posted on 07/02/2011 10:33:27 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

So why should you give a damn?


150 posted on 07/02/2011 11:14:06 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-183 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