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

Skip to comments.

Senate bill authorizes federal government to revoke citizenship of the American people
Coach is Right ^ | 1/15/2012 | Doug Book

Posted on 01/15/2012 10:31:26 AM PST by Oldpuppymax

A bill has been introduced in the United States Senate which will authorize the federal government to revoke the citizenship, creating practical expatriates, of American citizens.

Introduced by Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman and Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown, S 1698, the “Enemy Expatriation Act,” is a simple, 2 page document which offers apparently innocent amendments and additions to existing federal legislation. (1)

That legislation, known as Title 8, “…outlines the role of aliens and nationality in the U.S. Code.” And it is just one small piece of this massive and complex law which the Enemy Expatriation Act seeks to modify, that being Section 349, the means by which “a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality…,” that is, his citizenship. (2)

Though there is currently little contained in Section 349 which would alarm any American citizen, one phrase added to the legislation by the “Enemy Expatriation Act” would change everything.

For it states that anyone voluntarily “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.” And nationality means citizenship! (1)

To be sure, most of us would be in favor of revoking American citizenship if it has been improperly, perhaps surreptitiously attained by Muslim terrorists who have entered the United States only to commit acts of violence and murder.

But it’s necessary to remember who we are dealing with in Washington, DC.

To Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security, it is Libertarians, soldiers returning from combat, gun owners, militia members, devout believers in the Constitution and those who loudly mistrust and criticize the federal government who are the true threats of “engaging in hostilities against the United States.”

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


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: citizenship; connecticut; enemyexpatriationact; joelieberman; massachusetts; ndaa; obama; s1698; scottbrown; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 01/15/2012 10:31:32 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Remember when we thought the Department of Homeland “Security” sounded like a good idea? And people being asked to smoke in the back of the of airplane? Wasn’t it Mark Twain who called it, “How to cook a frog”?


2 posted on 01/15/2012 10:36:30 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer ("Climate Change" my a.... All weather is local.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I warned the people arguing against birthright citizenship that giving the state the power to strip citizens of citizenship, would backfire.

And I was right. The only thing protecting YOU is citizenship. Chip away at that, and what have you got? Nothing.


3 posted on 01/15/2012 10:37:12 AM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

4 posted on 01/15/2012 10:41:38 AM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Spot on!


5 posted on 01/15/2012 10:45:02 AM PST by sauropod (OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE! Vote Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Lose our citizenship?

Does that mean we get everything for free? We'll get the backing of major portions of commerce.. free university educations.. and .. and

.. that in many cases we'll be above the law! What a deal!

6 posted on 01/15/2012 10:47:25 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Alien and Sedition Act 2.0


7 posted on 01/15/2012 10:49:51 AM PST by 6SJ7 (Meh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
First on the list anyone possessing an unregistered firearm.

Second on the list anyone possessing a registered firearm.

Third on the list any member of the”Tea Party’ and/or anyone the government and/or media has recorded attending a “Tea Party” event.

Forth on the list all FReepers.

Etc.

Etc,

8 posted on 01/15/2012 10:51:39 AM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

First on the list is the cheeky Kenyan bastard.

He can fall back on his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships


9 posted on 01/15/2012 10:52:12 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer) (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The only thing protecting YOU is citizenship. Chip away at that, and what have you got? Nothing.

It's been pretty obvious for about the last 50 years that it has been governments goal....to leave us all with nothing.

10 posted on 01/15/2012 10:53:31 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

How does that apply to this situation?


11 posted on 01/15/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by SuzyQue (Don't believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

So, you’re in favor of giving millions of illegal alien spawn citizenship, and by extension, their parents and realtives?

Just askin’.


12 posted on 01/15/2012 11:00:37 AM PST by Ernie Kaputnik ((It's a mad, mad, mad world.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

More evidence that the real threat to my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness isn’t in Tehran............it is in WASHINGTON DC! The Ruling Class is preparing to make war on the American People.


13 posted on 01/15/2012 11:02:00 AM PST by JohnKinAK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Exile has been a standard and appropriate punishment for thousands of years.

Like anything else, it is good when practiced by a good administration, and tyrannical when in the hands of a corrupt administration.

14 posted on 01/15/2012 11:04:08 AM PST by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie Kaputnik

What makes you a citizen is that you were born in America. Nobody questions this, nor do they challenge your rights, as an American.

The problem is - if we look at the parents and not the actual birthplace, if we let the state determine who can and cannot be citizens - then what is protecting you from having the state declare you to be a non-citizen and thus not entitled to the rights that you have?

The solution, to the problem, and this is going to be radical -

DON’T LET THEM IN. You can’t guard the barn door after the horse has escaped. If you want to protect America - protect it at the border! If that means erecting a fence - then so be it. If that means having patrols, so be it. That’s part of the obligation of the federal government - to protect the American borders.

How are you protecting americans by stripping away birthright citizenship? You might think that it’s not going to apply to you, but that’s not the case here, is it?


15 posted on 01/15/2012 11:08:45 AM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

A slippery slope to undermine the constitution...sedition, terrorism, acts of hostility, this is what prisons are for...although it seems one way or another, liberals are hell bent on stopping constitutional conservatives, make no mistake about it, this is the ultimate goal.


16 posted on 01/15/2012 11:08:44 AM PST by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“First on the list is the cheeky Kenyan bastard.

“He can fall back on his Kenyan and Indonesian citizenships.”

Second on the list is John McCain. He is dual. He is both Panamanian and American.


17 posted on 01/15/2012 11:11:44 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer) (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi; Ernie Kaputnik

Never give yourself or your friends something that can be abused by your enemies.


18 posted on 01/15/2012 11:16:26 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Spoiler Alert! The secret to Terra Nova: THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Are there any Presidential candidates opposed to this bill?


19 posted on 01/15/2012 11:16:29 AM PST by running_dog_lackey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: running_dog_lackey
Are there any Presidential candidates opposed to this bill?

I bet there is at least one!!!

20 posted on 01/15/2012 11:25:09 AM PST by BillGunn (Bill Gunn for Congress district one rep. Massachusetts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
anyone voluntarily “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.”

Just who or what makes that decision?

What is the exact criteria to determine such acts of support or hostility?

Some nameless faceless group of bureaucrats buried behind layers of anonymity in a government agency stacked to the gills with communist agenda "progressive and liberal" donks?





Yeah, that's what I thought.
.s what I thought.

21 posted on 01/15/2012 11:26:34 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
anyone voluntarily “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.”

Just who or what makes that decision?

What is the exact criteria to determine such acts of support or hostility?

Some nameless faceless group of bureaucrats buried behind layers of anonymity in a government agency stacked to the gills with communist agenda "progressive and liberal" donks?





Yeah, that's what I thought.
. progressive and liberal

22 posted on 01/15/2012 11:28:30 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The only thing protecting YOU is citizenship. Chip away at that, and what have you got? Nothing.

When the doors to illegals are wide open and states become inundated with people who can't speak English and work cheap with no benefits, citizenship becomes a moot benefit to living here if laws protecting citizens are not enforced.

Most homeowners in association don't speak English; what to do?

23 posted on 01/15/2012 11:34:47 AM PST by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

“engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States” will lose his “nationality.”

Isn’t that a large part of Congress and a larger part of the present administration?


24 posted on 01/15/2012 11:40:32 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

What about lawyers who represent illegals against American citizens?


25 posted on 01/15/2012 11:43:35 AM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Read it and weep. The bolded italicized section will just kill you.

S 1698 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1698

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

October 12, 2011

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

26 posted on 01/15/2012 11:48:12 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

This is nutcase stuff. Everything else that has been posted here by “old coach” has had factual errors in it a mile wide. I will not give this any credence until I read about it from a reliable source with a respect for the truth.


27 posted on 01/15/2012 11:49:05 AM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Dear La Lydia,

You have a perfect right to consider this “nutcase stuff.” But I suggest you connect to the links which detail both the bill and the law it seeks to amend. Then follow the other links which go into how all of this was done quite legally with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, basing the authority granted by that law on the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed just after 9/11. All of these are made legal according to the “Laws of War.”

I certainly agree with you that it’s nutcase stuff. Unfortunately, it’s our DC ruling class which is NUTS!


28 posted on 01/15/2012 12:04:44 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

Neither Congress nor the President nor any Federal court has any authority to abrogate citizenship for anyone whose status as a citizen is defined by the Constitution.

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to make rules for naturalization of citizens (which is the conferral of citizenship on someone who would not be a citizen without an act of Congress,) but not to make any laws that redefine who is or is not a citizen in the absence of any act of Congress. A person either is or is not a Constitutional citizen, and no act of Congress can change that either way. Congress can naturalize a non-Constitutional citizen, but is granted no other authority on the subject.

For example, Congress cannot pass a law that would nullify the clause in the 14th Amendment that makes anyone born on US soil to a legally-resident alien a US citizen, nor one that changes the definition of who is or is not a natural-born citizen (see Minor vs Happersett.)


29 posted on 01/15/2012 12:14:18 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
I read it on the Library of Congress' bill tracking website. Then I looked at the existing statute, that is, 8 U.S.C. § 1481, originally enacted in 1961 and substantially revised in 1967. Existing statute ALREADY IDENTIFIES SEVEN CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH CITIZENS CAN LOSE THEIR U.S. CITIZENSHIP, this is NOTHING NEW, if they perform one of those acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." Under the proposed revision of the existing statute, an eighth category would be added for a person who "engages in hostilities or purposefully and materially supports hostilities against the United States." Hostilities means war or acts of terrorism or instigation/encouragement thereof. I have never seen the word "hostilities" used to mean domestic civil disobedience or political opposition. The target here is someone like the late, unlamented Anwar al Alwaki, who recruited other American citizens to attack our homeland and Americans and American assets abroad. He was born in the US to parents who were studying here and raised abroad and provides a perfect example of the folly of granting birthright citizenship. It seems to me that if an American citizen joins America's enemies in carrying out hostile acts against our country, that is, tries to kill us, we should be able to take it for granted that he or she is renouncing his or her American citizenship. We used to call such people traitors and hang them.

I infer from your comments that you support repealing the entire current statute, as well as oppose enactment of the revision. I think that would be a tragic, dangerous mistake. The posted article reads like it was written by Roseanne Roseannadanna.

30 posted on 01/15/2012 12:31:49 PM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Reminds me of Starship Trooper, where citizenship is earned thru Federal Service.


31 posted on 01/15/2012 12:42:26 PM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


32 posted on 01/15/2012 1:46:21 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
What makes you a citizen is that you were born in America

You are incorrect. What makes you a citizen is that you were born to parents that owe their allegiance to the United States of America. That is why children born to foreign diplomats on US soil aren't USC's.

33 posted on 01/15/2012 1:54:09 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
How are you protecting americans by stripping away birthright citizenship

Nothing is being stripped away. We are going back to the original intent of the Founders, the US Constitution and in particualr the 14th amendment.

34 posted on 01/15/2012 1:56:39 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

Then you can show me where the constitution supports your definition.

Aside from the exception for foreign dignitaries, yes, you are a citizen of America if you are born in America.


35 posted on 01/15/2012 1:58:23 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

Unfortunately the constitution disagrees with you. Born in america is sufficient.


36 posted on 01/15/2012 1:59:38 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames

Or in this case - allegience to Obama.

But never fear it won’t happen to you. ;)


37 posted on 01/15/2012 2:00:50 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

La Lydia,

I remember Roseanne well. She never failed to end her broadcasts with “never mind”, right?
You’re quite right about the 7 points in 1481. And the addition of the 8th makes the difference. “Hostilities” are defined in the EEA as “any conflict subject to the laws of war.”
But you might be missing one very key item, specified in the EEA. Look at Section 2 Loss of Nationality. See (B) and read it as it says to strike the period at the end of Para 7 and insert “or” and then Para 8, the new addition. This means it will no longer be necessary to convict someone by a court martial or a court of competent jurisdiction. The only necessity if EEA is made law will be the terms of Para 8! And as is the fact with the NDAA of 2012, it will be pretty much up to the discretion of the federal government, the president really, as to who is stripped of citizenship, for the president will make the call on the hostility question. And we’ve just watched as Obama totally ignored the law in making his “recess” appointment.

No, I don’t believe that 1481 should be repealed. But the EEA is a scary and DANGEROUS piece of work. It could have been made quite specific in its targets—only naturalized citizens, for example. But no, it includes ALL American citizens, by design.

And unlike Roseanne, I’ll not say “never mind.” Just be careful of trusting the good intentions of today’s DC ruling class.


38 posted on 01/15/2012 2:36:19 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

And I have a bridge for sale.


39 posted on 01/15/2012 4:23:31 PM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Oldpuppymax.
To Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security, it is Libertarians, soldiers returning from combat, gun owners, militia members, devout believers in the Constitution and those who loudly mistrust and criticize the federal government who are the true threats of "engaging in hostilities against the United States."

40 posted on 01/15/2012 6:27:22 PM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
Hmmm, is this just fallback against the time when the fraud that is Obaama is exposed?

Cheers!

41 posted on 01/15/2012 9:00:37 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Aside from the exception for foreign dignitaries, yes, you are a citizen of America if you are born in America.

A child born to parents legally in the US and abiding by our laws is exempt from US citizenship. A child born to parents that have violated and have contempt our laws is a US citizen and you don't see any problem with that?

42 posted on 01/15/2012 9:46:05 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax
"the government" hasn't got this right, and I don't care if the Supreme Court upholds such a presumptuous stupid act. It would still be null and void.

To quote Popeye, "I yam what I yam."

43 posted on 01/15/2012 9:46:44 PM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

What’s the law that was broken?

The law that was broken, is the law that they broke by entering America illegally.

The child has done nothing. The citizenship - belongs to the child, not to the family.

The problem isn’t birthright citizenship, it is welfare and all the other goodies that are disbursed to citizens just for breathing. Get rid of those, and we return to how the republic used to work.

The Republic was built off immigrants that were willing to come and contribute to America. This is why the current welfare policy is a hindrance, because it attracts the wrong kind of immigrants.

Take away the goodies, and you get rid of most of the impetus for folks to come to the US.


44 posted on 01/15/2012 9:52:56 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

If you answer my question then I’ll answer yours.


45 posted on 01/15/2012 10:04:42 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Less than ten percent of Americans are immigrants. 90 percent were born here. We are not a nation of immigrants. Stop buying into the liberal propaganda.


46 posted on 01/15/2012 10:10:13 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

Exempt - by choice. I don’t have a problem with foreign dignitaries declining to take advantage of their entitlement to American citizenship. They could take it up if they wanted to.

And no, I don’t have a problem with granting citizenship to a child born in america to those who entered the country illegally. The child is not responsible for the actions of his parents.

The real problem, and this is the problem I have - are the entitlements.


47 posted on 01/15/2012 10:13:59 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

Well lets see.

John Washington was from Essex, emigrating in 1656 to start tobacco plantations in Virginia.

William Randolph, emigrated from Warwickshire in 1669.

John Adams Sr, Emigrated from Essex in 1638.

Shall I continue?

Yes, immigrants did found America. I’m not sure why this is controversial. Every single one of these folks took risks to come from the old country to start a life in the new country. By taking these risks, their children and their children’s children eventually became the folks that signed the declaration of independence and the founders of the country.

If these folks did not take the chance, then America as she became would not have became what she did.


48 posted on 01/15/2012 10:27:30 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rick Santorum - "The Force is strong with this one")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

According to you illegal aliens should get citizenship while legal aliens should not. So much for the rule of law huh?


49 posted on 01/15/2012 10:39:29 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

Screw the rule of law, we don’t need no stinkin’ rule of law..isn’t that right?


50 posted on 01/15/2012 10:40:48 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnocet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 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