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

Skip to comments.

Your Right to Use Vitamins Is in Jeopardy, Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 09.03.03 | Dr. Julian Whitaker

Posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:35 PM PDT by Coleus

Your Right to Use Nutritional Supplements Is in Jeopardy
Senators Push Regulatory Assault on Vitamins

by Dr. Julian Whitaker

Posted Sep 3, 2003

alt
alt alt alt
alt Story Options
alt Text Size:  S   M   L
alt printer-friendly
alt email to a friend
alt
alt
alt Related Stories           alt
alt alt alt
alt
We need to take action, and we need to take action now. There is a movement in Congress to push through legislation that would restrict your freedom to use nutritional supplements, and could destroy the nutritional supplement industry?and, in the process, endanger your health.

Here is the problem. Reacting to the hysteria over ephedra, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D.-Ill.) has introduced S. 722, cosponsored by colleagues Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.), and Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.). The bill gives unprecedented power to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove nutritional supplements from the market. Here’s how:



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: atkins; atkinsdiet; benny; democrat; dratkins; dshea; fda; food; foodsupplements; health; healthcare; hillary; hillarycare; hillaryhealthcare; jonathanvwright; minerals; nannystate; rights; s722; supplements; vitamins; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-266 next last

The Dietary Supplement "Safety" Act (S.722)

 The Dietary Supplement “Safety” Act

Don't Let Congress Overturn the Hard-Fought Victory of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994
 

A new bill called the "Dietary Supplement Safety" Act (S.722) has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Despite its title, it would allow no more consumer protection than current law – the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) – provides. It would, however, significantly undermine many of the freedoms that American consumers of dietary supplements hold dear.

Oppose this Legislation!
The Food and Drug Administration must not be granted new and unprecedented authority to subject safe and beneficial products to additional and unnecessary scrutiny.


This bill would subject nearly all vitamins, minerals, herbal products and other supplements to a level of scrutiny that is both unwarranted and unnecessary. Products that have been used safely for hundreds – and in some cases, thousands – of years would be subject to clinical evaluation using standards that are at the complete discretion of the FDA.
For more information and to e-Mail online to your particular representative go to the NNFA:

National Nutritional Foods Association

It's easy and fast, and locates your Representative by zip code.

Vitamins on the FR

1 posted on 06/09/2004 7:11:36 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cyborg; RepubMommy; redhead

Sponsored by Dick Durbin, Co-Sponsored by: Sen Clinton, Sen Feinstein, Sen McCain, Sen Schumer,


2 posted on 06/09/2004 7:13:08 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

MC CAIN????


3 posted on 06/09/2004 7:14:22 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Since this bill is from LAST YEAR ----

Did you look up the current status? did it pass / fail / tabled ???


4 posted on 06/09/2004 7:14:25 PM PDT by steplock (http://www.gohotsprings.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Has anyone announced opposition to the bill? If so, maybe they should filibuster it.


5 posted on 06/09/2004 7:16:02 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

done! I should expect nothing less from Hillary Care.


6 posted on 06/09/2004 7:16:42 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

http://www.drwhitaker.com/

Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.


7 posted on 06/09/2004 7:16:54 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (John F-ing Kerry??? NO... F-ING... WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
,,, vitamins? Why have something that's good for you when there's... [CLICK HERE].
8 posted on 06/09/2004 7:23:15 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steplock
This comes up every year. The pharmaceutical industry keeps trying to get its buddies in Congress to pass laws against nutritional supplements. As it is, the current laws make it really easy to take a supplement off the market, even if misuse caused medical problems.

It's inane. Can you imagine how many pharmaceuticals would be left on the market under those conditions? Can you imagine what it would cost health insurance plans and the government if people who paid for their own vitamins and supplements instead used products that are covered by insurance policies and government programs?

Is the day going to come when I'll have to go to Canada to purchase vitamin pills? Or, is everyone going to be a zombie with the government deciding what pills they should take? Keep in mind that it has already happened with some adolescents and Ritalin.

9 posted on 06/09/2004 7:25:09 PM PDT by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

There are a lot of people who don't sell vitamins who have to keep their officials on their toes about this. As you know, the government thinks they know your health needs better than YOU do.


10 posted on 06/09/2004 7:25:45 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

done. Thanks for posting.


11 posted on 06/09/2004 7:28:39 PM PDT by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe

Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.

So go ahead and support Hillary Care, this bill will hurt the free market and the consumer, like me and 70 million Americans, who takes these products. Who cares about Whitaker besides you?


12 posted on 06/09/2004 7:38:25 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Dr. Whitaker has a vested interest in selling unregulated supplements. And I don't by his hysterical argument about the FDA pulling vitamin C off the shelf because someone gets diahhrea.

Your argument is no different than the standard leftist blah blah about any person or business that argues that regulation of its business is a bad idea. 'Well, they have a financial interest.' So rich people complaining about taxes should be ignored because of their financial interest. Farmers complaining about environmental regulations should be ignored, etc.

As to your 'hysteria' argument, you should read up on the history of the FDA's attempts to regulate supplements. It reads like a little slice of Brave New World. It's like a poorly publicized ATF during the Clinton administration. FDA cops swooping down on warehouses of Vitamins that have labels they haven't approved etc etc etc. It's happened many times.

The most important question is: is there a compelling argument that we should give another robust and successful American industry over to the tender ministration of the Feds. I have never seen any good argument that the Feds would make things any better. Given goverment track records, it will probably make things worse.

In the case of the FDA, its even worse than the typical regulators. It's a classic case of an agency that is owned by the regulatees. Many FDA officials are former large pharmaceutical company executives. Most FDA officials go onto lucrative jobs with large pharmaceutical companies.

The result is that the FDA prevents any new competition with the existing large pharmaceutical companies with absurdly expensive testing regimes that force smaller pharmaceutical companies to license the big ones in order to get thru the testing for FDA approval.

The supplement market is creating thousands of jobs in America with a much better record of safety than the pharmaceutical industry. The feds should keep their hands off.

13 posted on 06/09/2004 7:53:01 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

PINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!


14 posted on 06/09/2004 7:58:17 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Sponsored by Dick Durbin, Co-Sponsored by: Sen Clinton, Sen Feinstein, Sen McCain, Sen Schumer,

Well what do you know, a bunch of gun-grabbers going after another slice of our freedom. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

15 posted on 06/09/2004 8:23:57 PM PDT by Colorado Buckeye (It's the culture stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
IL Sen. Durbin for years carved himself a career and gained immeasurable exposure by investigating oil companies whenever gas prices went up. Problem is, he never, not once,
found evidence of price gouging as he originally alleged under great fanfare.
He is currently at it again, while at the same time he voted against Bush's energy policy allowing for exploration in Alaska and is part of the Democratic energy filibusterers.
His voting is also against corn for gas interests in his own corn growing state.
This man is at it again highlighting himself under another consumer protection disguise.
The media loves him, while he so skillfully maneuvers himself into media news, gains popularity with the uninformed, without having to show results as all will be dropped and forgotten when he eventually jumps onto another project.
Durbin is the ultimate consumer protection news hound coming up with dry holes.
16 posted on 06/09/2004 8:27:59 PM PDT by hermgem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Dr. Atkins called them the FnDA and we both know why. That David Kestler was the worst, I think Atkins once  called him a Nazi.

David Kessler’s Legacy at the FDA

Home


17 posted on 06/09/2004 9:14:00 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Where the hell does the Constitution say "Congress shall have the right to make laws determining which vitamins and supplements are suitable for consumption by American citizens, and the right to deem disfavored substances harmful, and the right to ban such substances from the open market"?

I must have missed that clause.


18 posted on 06/10/2004 4:21:23 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdadams

I must have missed that clause. >>

Yea, me too, some day we will return to the great constitutional republic our forefathers designed and followed.


19 posted on 06/10/2004 9:56:40 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..

WOD Ping


20 posted on 06/10/2004 9:57:50 AM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I have a right to use vitamins?! The fact that this group is adding yet another imaginary right is good enough reason not to sign.


21 posted on 06/10/2004 10:00:25 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Unless the Constitution expressly gives the government overisight, then yes, you do have the right to use vitamins.


22 posted on 06/10/2004 10:04:29 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

No, that kind of thinking is how the whole "penumbra concept" BS got started. While I agree that this is unconstitutional interference in interstate trade that oesn't mean I have a right to use vitamins, what it means is the government doesn't have a right to try to crush this industry. Important difference.


23 posted on 06/10/2004 10:08:36 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I must have missed that clause.

Most people believe the Constitution works the opposite way. That is, if the right is not expressly listed in the Consitution, then the people don't have it. Understandable, since in reality that is how it has come to work over the years.

24 posted on 06/10/2004 10:08:46 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: discostu

So there are no such things as "inalienable" rights?


25 posted on 06/10/2004 10:10:08 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

There such things as inalienable rights, using vitamins ain't on that list.


26 posted on 06/10/2004 10:13:29 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; tdadams; discostu

Not ALL rights are listed in the Constitution that is why they put in the vague 9th amendment (unnamed rights not listed) which became the bellwether for the Roe vs.. Wade decision with the "right to privacy".

And those rights NOT enumerated in the Bill of Rights are then left up to the STATES and NOT for Hillary and the US Congress, 10th amendment states' rights.

There are 70 million of us who have done just very well taking supplements without Hillary and the Congress watching over us. I think we can survive without them.


27 posted on 06/10/2004 10:14:48 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

I don't have a problem with the suppliment industry, I don't have a problem with trying to stop this bill. What I have a problem with is people adding "rights" willie-nillie. As we both pointed out, that's how we got this "right to privacy" concept that somehow includes abortion. It's bad logic and a bad argument that leads to future troubles.


28 posted on 06/10/2004 10:18:06 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: discostu
So what is "on the list"?

Pragmatically speaking, of course, it doesn't matter. The Feds will do whatever they want, whenever they want.

29 posted on 06/10/2004 10:22:16 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Buying, owning, and wearing white boxers isn't on the list either. What is your point?


30 posted on 06/10/2004 10:24:22 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: discostu
What I have a problem with is people adding "rights" willie-nillie.

They were never added, they always existed as non-enumerated.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

31 posted on 06/10/2004 10:29:35 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; discostu
So what is "on the list"?

I'm eager to find out what my inalienable rights are, and why they don't include taking vitamins. (I hope they include eating food.)

32 posted on 06/10/2004 10:30:27 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
"you do have the right to use vitamins."

Wow! Cool.

Hey, Wolfie, is that an unalienable right like the unalienable right to do drugs and the unalienable right to own a machine gun?

33 posted on 06/10/2004 10:32:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lunatic Fringe
Our local favorite vitamin store is also concerned about this bill. While S722 appears to still be in process, I understand that another similar bill has passed and is in committee with the house.

Dr. Whitaker (and others) have an interest in selling vitamins. I have an interest in having them available to take. The vitamin industry pales in comparison to the pharmaceutical companies for the amount of money they want to control.

One man's ephedra may be viewed either positively or negatively by others. I think he should have the freedom to make the choice himself - w/o government control except for the purity of whatever supplement it claims to be.

34 posted on 06/10/2004 10:36:59 AM PDT by NorthGA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

The Origins of the Ninth Amendment

"The origins of the ninth amendment can be traced to the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists, who opposed ratification, concentrated much of their attack on the absence of a bill of rights. Although many Antifederalists were probably more concerned with defeating the Constitution than with obtaining a bill of rights, they repeatedly pressed this charge because it struck a responsive cord with the people. The Federalists who supported ratification, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, gave two answers to this complaint."

"First, they said that a bill of rights was unnecessary. Because the federal government was one of enumerated and limited powers, it would have no power to violate the rights of the people. "Why, for instance," asked Hamilton, "should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Second, they argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights might suggest to later interpreters of the Constitution that the rights not specified had been surrendered. An enumeration of rights could thereby lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power and a corresponding erosion of individual rights."

The Rights Retained by The People [and the presumption of liberty]

35 posted on 06/10/2004 10:39:40 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Life liberty persuit of happiness speech assembly religion bear arms freedom from unwarranted search and seizure... come on guys these are no brainers, you have read the Declaration of Independance and the Bill or Rights.


36 posted on 06/10/2004 10:39:58 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

My point is that making up sillie rights is how we've gotten stuck with right to abortion and right to homosexual marriage. If you want to stop a stupid bill (which I'm all for) don't do it with a falcious argument that makes up some previously never before seen "right" which could have some pretty annoying consequences down the road.


37 posted on 06/10/2004 10:41:51 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Actually dumba$$, the machine gun part is in fact listed. Ever hear of the Second Amendment? What is a machine gun if not in the classification of a militia armament?

I know the whole "shall not be infringed" thing confuses you...

38 posted on 06/10/2004 10:43:08 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: freeeee

Well great, then by that logic there are penumbra concepts and Roe v Wade was right. Of course since we all know there aren't any penumbra concepts and Roe v Wade was garbage then obviously you're interpreting the 9th and 10th too broadly.


39 posted on 06/10/2004 10:43:36 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: discostu
So keeping extra Constitutional powers out of the hands of the Feds is now "silly".

Thanks for playing...

40 posted on 06/10/2004 10:44:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Life liberty persuit of happiness speech assembly religion bear arms freedom from unwarranted search and seizure...

Those are some of the enumerated rights.

Non-enumerated rights are explicity recognized and afforded protection under the Constitution via the 9th Amendment.

41 posted on 06/10/2004 10:45:49 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Roe V Wade was WRONG as it created judicial Law. Something forbidden as it is not listed as a Federal Power. Abortion is a States issue. As are most murder cases. And Marriage. And Drugs. And ....


42 posted on 06/10/2004 10:45:51 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

No, making up idiotic rights that don't really exists is silly. I've said multiple times stopping this law would be a good thing, just do it the right way instead of the leftist way of making crap up.

Thanks for twisting my words into something they're not, it shows you're wrong.


43 posted on 06/10/2004 10:50:13 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freeeee

But non-enumerated rights do NOT include any stupid damn thing some bozo decides to make up off the top of his head. You do not now, never have before, and God willing never will, nave a right to take vitamins. No such right exists in a society that actually knows what the word "right" means. The next step after deciding there's some right to take vitamins is making up a duty of the government to provide vitamins, that way lies leftist stupidity. Stop the madness and block the law with things that actually exist, like the fact that this law is entirely outside the limitations to the federal government listed in he Constitution. Stop bad laws with smart things not with moronic made up rights.


44 posted on 06/10/2004 10:53:15 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

My points always elude you, don't they? I'll try again. Is it an unalienable right?


45 posted on 06/10/2004 10:53:21 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: discostu

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" sounds like the mother of all penumbras to me. Of course, it might be countered by that mother of all Governmental powers, "To Promote the General Welfare".


46 posted on 06/10/2004 10:53:43 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Trying to say that somewhere in a government storehouse is a list of all of our Rights is what is silly.

Government has specific powers. Granted to them by us. This isn't one of them.

47 posted on 06/10/2004 10:53:49 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

No. Your "points" always come across like big government communist bullsh*t to me.


48 posted on 06/10/2004 10:55:10 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Yeah and if we push through the idea that there's a right to take vitamins that the government dare not interfere with that would also be creating judicial law. I agree vitamins are not something the fed should be considering, but just because the fed shouldn't be messing with something doesn't mean you have a right to it, it just means it's not in the thankfully small list of stuff the fed should be messing with as listed in the Constitution.


49 posted on 06/10/2004 10:55:13 AM PDT by discostu (Brick urgently required, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: discostu
obviously you're interpreting the 9th and 10th too broadly

While the 10th Amendment is self explanatory (all powers not delegated are prohibited), the 9th Amendment needs logical parameters spelled out to determine its scope. And the fickle and changing whims of SCOTUS are not a legitimate method of doing so.

I prefer use the stated purpose of our government as a logical guide to the scope of the 9th:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

As abortion violates the rights of another (life), it is not consistent with the legitimate purpose of our government and does not warrant 9th Amendment protection.

Taking vitamins violates no one's rights. Therefore it falls under the 9th Amendment. Even if it didn't, the 10th Amendment forbids federal involvement (not that the fed cares).

50 posted on 06/10/2004 10:55:38 AM PDT by freeeee ("Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-266 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson