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

Skip to comments.

Collocating Coffins (Political correctness in the military did not end with the Clinton admin.)
The American Prowler ^ | 3/18/2005 | George Neumayr

Posted on 03/19/2005 2:11:42 AM PST by nickcarraway

Political correctness in the U.S. military did not end with the Clinton administration. President Bush's military is also pushing an ideology of "equality" at the expense of military effectiveness. For the sake of an absurd feminist experiment, the Bush military is willing to sap its strength, expose women to torture and death and mar the lives of children and families. The price tag of this experiment is on the body bags carrying mothers, wives, and daughters who have died in Iraq, and on the growing list of orphans produced by the war. Read the casualty reports: Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, mother of two preschoolers; Melissa J. Hobart, 22, mother of a 3 year-old; Jessica L. Cawvey, 21, single mother of a 6-year-old; Sgt. Pamela Osbourne, 38, mother of three children, ages 9-19, Katrina L. Bell-Johnson, 32, mother of a 1-year-old.

"Tens of thousands of children are struggling to cope while Mom goes to war," reports the Sacramento Bee. And if Mom does come back, she may return as an amputee. Or shell-shocked, reports the Bee: "Returning female vets are bringing back wounded minds, beset by post-traumatic stress disorder, an illness that affects women at twice the rate of men. Health care experts fear an avalanche of cases among female vets will smother the military health care system."

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness reports that the Bush military, far from reconsidering the feminization of the military under Bill Clinton, is advancing it. The Bush Pentagon has now done what Clinton didn't even do by implementing a de facto women-in-combat policy of placing women in front-line support groups alongside combat units.

"Under current federal law and military regulations, women are barred from ground combat groups," reports the Bee. (And Bush has said "no women in combat.") "There are indications, however, that the Pentagon is less steadfast than its commander-in-chief about maintaining the status quo. In February, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division acknowledged it has assigned women to units in Iraq that directly support combat troops by providing food, equipment maintenance and other services. The process, called 'collocation' -- literally to place side by side-- is at odds with an 11-year-old Army policy that bans women from serving in front-line support groups."

Elaine Donnelly tells TAS that a Pentagon attitude of "This is how women grow their careers" is driving the new collocation policy. The Pentagon has bizarrely said that these women will only serve alongside combat units when they are not in combat but should they find themselves in combat the military will "evacuate" the female troops. If that doesn't show the military's willingness to lose battles for the sake of a gender-integration experiment, what does?

What a lunatic scenario: the military is placing women with combat units on the assumption that they won't see combat but should they see combat it will dissipate battle resources to "evacuate" soldiers who shouldn't have been there in the first place all so that it can maintain a modified "collocation" policy that conforms to a careerist feminist ideology in the Pentagon.

Soldiers have told Donnelly that the new collocation rule is insane. An infantry officer described what evacuating the 24 women in these units will mean: "[Removing] 24 fully loaded soldiers [would require] two Blackhawk helicopters, six Huey helicopters, one Chinook helicopter, two 5-ton (or LMTV) trucks, 12 up-armored HMMWV's (with a full crew of three) and four to six unarmored HMMWV's to move. These are assets that cannot be spared simply to move females to the rear. In combat, helicopters are preferable but a very scarce asset. Imagine an entire brigade trying to chopper out these female contingents before combat -- it would require almost half of a division's worth of aviation assets to move them all at once."

A female officer told Donnelly: "The key question...remove females when combat begins. That is ridiculous. When does the combat begin? According to the President the war ended and we are not in a 'war zone' but in a 'Theater of Operations' now. I think it is a play on words and commanders in the field will not follow those guidelines. This is political language that we commanders are not aware of. Once soldiers are in the units they will all be placed wherever they are needed regardless of their gender."

In other words, the new collocation policy is a formula for at once losing battles and getting women killed. It is not even accurate to say that death is an equal opportunity provider on the battlefield as women will have less chance of surviving than the men.

But it is not surprising that the military is blurring the distinction between combat and noncombat field positions for women. The door blocking women in combat has been ajar since it became clear that "noncombat" jobs would mean de facto combat jobs (as evident in the fact that "noncombat" women carry weaponry and are dying in combat situations). The military's new collocation policy signifies that it is readying to kick the door wide open. In the meantime, however, female soldiers will learn the hard way what the military means by career benefits.

"You're not generally told as a female that you will be in that type of situation where you are in harm's way directly," National Guard Sergeant Brenda Monroe said to the Sacramento Bee. "I never dreamed that I would wake up every night and have to run to a bunker and take cover because we were being attacked or under direct fire."

The feminist dream that began under Clinton is producing a nightmare under Bush. How many women and mothers will have to die before a Bush military that should know better stops it?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: anotherhateusa; bushhate; collocation; militarymothers; militarywomen; womenincombat

1 posted on 03/19/2005 2:11:42 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

You forgot to add the barf alert. What's this leftist crap doing on this site?


2 posted on 03/19/2005 2:15:36 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer

An article opposing females in combat is leftist? Your compass needs some fine tuning.


3 posted on 03/19/2005 2:26:44 AM PST by jaykay (It's just my opinion, but I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

And what a bunch of B.S.; thousands of women dying in combat leaving tens of thousands of orphans? Yea right.
Women join the army knowing the risks. it isn't a holiday nor a ticket for free education and salary. Some get killed. but very few. nothing to support this claim of tens of thousands of orphans.
Note how "Bush said combat was over" is slipped in as well.
This should be pulled.


4 posted on 03/19/2005 2:27:02 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
News flash, woman are already in combat roles, in the US Navy, Army and Marines. And they have been for a while. They fly combat aircraft on combat missions. There were several female AH-64 Apache pilots that participated on combat strikes during the war. I met two of them. And they knew what what they were in for right from the start. And both of them loved the work. I say more power to them.

This leftist Koolaid argument has no merit. If a female service member is in Iraq, regardless of location or MOS, she is potentially in a combat area. She can be an admin REMF deep inside the confines of the Green Zone and can still get killed by a suicide car bomber, mortar shell or rocket. She can get killed by an IED along any Iraqi road. Is this news to these people?
5 posted on 03/19/2005 2:27:51 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

Oops, meant US Air Force instead of Marines, my bad


6 posted on 03/19/2005 2:28:59 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jaykay

There aren't any women in combat. They may be near combat areas but only as support.
This article suggests women are in combat and are being killed in high numbers which simply isn't true.
Tens of thousands of orphaned children... yea right. I recall a woman who died defusing a roadside bomb. That was her job, it isn't "combat".


7 posted on 03/19/2005 2:30:48 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stm
If a female service member is in Iraq, regardless of location or MOS, she is potentially in a combat area. She can be an admin REMF deep inside the confines of the Green Zone and can still get killed by a suicide car bomber, mortar shell or rocket. She can get killed by an IED along any Iraqi road.

Under these conditions, 31 women have been killed out of over 1500. Obviously women have not been assuming the same risk as men as yet. If they do so now, the body count will be similar.
8 posted on 03/19/2005 2:33:11 AM PST by jaykay (It's just my opinion, but I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stm

Except in specialty areas like you mention. Not Army ground troops except in support positions or specialtis like Sappers.


9 posted on 03/19/2005 2:34:21 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer

The article is refering to this proposed "colocation" rule change. If enacted, the number of females killed will be closer to the number of men killed instead of about 30 out of over 1500.


10 posted on 03/19/2005 2:36:37 AM PST by jaykay (It's just my opinion, but I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jaykay
"31 women have been killed out of over 1500"

That means they each had 322 children each to support this claim of even 10,000 affected children, never mind the "tens of thousands".

11 posted on 03/19/2005 2:39:03 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer
There are a lot of female MP's in Iraq. They are not considered true combat arms but they wind up in a lot of combat arms situations. And their missions take them into some very dangerous positions.

I have been in the infantry for 17 years and have been in Iraq twice. If a woman is strong enough to ruck up with 60 - 80 pounds on her back and keep up with us on a 15 mile forced road march, can shoot well and does not fold under combat, then she can share my foxhole any day. It's her choice. I have had enough of all this politically correct BS.
12 posted on 03/19/2005 2:39:15 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer
What's this leftist crap doing on this site?

Yeah, right. George Neumayr and the American Spectator is left wing. Opposing feminists groups and homosexual activists groups is left wing. I suppose the Equal Rights Ammendment, which first came up with the idea of forcing women in combat in the army was a conservative ammendment to the Constitution. And I suppose Phyllis Schlafly who opposed the ERA and women in combat is a left-winger? Up is down. Hot is cold.

And what a bunch of B.S.; thousands of women dying in combat leaving tens of thousands of orphans?

Next time read a little close. It doesn't say anything about thousands of orphans.

Note how "Bush said combat was over" is slipped in as well.

Nice try. Check out his article archive, Neumayr supported the war in Iraq and President Bush.

13 posted on 03/19/2005 2:40:19 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer
Tens of thousands of orphaned children.

You are deliberately lying about what this article says. It not say that that many children are orphaned, it says their mothers are overseas. Are you a representative of NOW or something? The Clinton era is over, get over it. We should get rid of Clinton era policies.

14 posted on 03/19/2005 2:44:16 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer
That means they each had 322 children each to support this claim of even 10,000 affected children, never mind the "tens of thousands".

Okay, put up or shut up. The article does not say there are that many orphans. Try to show where it says that, or prove yourself a troll.

15 posted on 03/19/2005 2:47:08 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer

The article says that tens of thousands of children are coping while their mothers are in Iraq, not necessarily killed.


16 posted on 03/19/2005 2:47:52 AM PST by jaykay (It's just my opinion, but I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Lancey Howard; maryz

ping


17 posted on 03/19/2005 2:48:10 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Tens of thousands of children are struggling to cope while Mom goes to war," reports the Sacramento Bee. And if Mom does come back, she may return as an amputee. Or shell-shocked, reports the Bee: "Returning female vets are bringing back wounded minds, beset by post-traumatic stress disorder, an illness that affects women at twice the rate of men. Health care experts fear an avalanche of cases among female vets will smother the military health care system."

The fear mongering is in there, just read it. And watch who you call a troll. This whole article is fear mongering, plain and simple. Women join the army on their own free will. They know the risks. they aren't forced or tricked etc. into anything. MEN are sons, brothers, husbands and fathers as well. Why the discrimination? Maybe everyone should just stay home... I spent my years in the military, and have known many a fine female who made their careers in the service as well. We don't need these armchair general- civilian speculators dreaming up scenarios which aren't happening.

18 posted on 03/19/2005 3:01:35 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Or, looking at it another way, out of the 1500 women claimed to be in Iraq, they each have 6 children,(based on 10 thousand, not tens of thousands) and everyone of them have some sort of medical problem caused by being in the theare of operations.

yea right. fear mongering, plain and simple. Most women don't even have children, are young and single.


19 posted on 03/19/2005 3:08:23 AM PST by Nuzcruizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer
Seems to me we have had only 1500 deaths in the war. I don't think they were all women. Even if they were according to this stupid article, they would have to have birthed over a thousand children each. Dah! What a bunch of doo doo. Amen.
20 posted on 03/19/2005 3:21:39 AM PST by gakrak ("A wise man's heart is his right hand, But a fool's heart is at his left" Eccl 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gakrak
The Tet Offensive in 1968 resulted in as many US casualties as we have had in Iraq in 2 years. And the WIA numbers were far higher than we have suffered in Iraq.

It just seems that people have very short memories.
21 posted on 03/19/2005 3:30:31 AM PST by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gakrak

The article does not claim that that many children have lost their mothers, simply that they are without their mothers for the duration that those women are deployed.


22 posted on 03/19/2005 3:45:54 AM PST by jaykay (It's just my opinion, but I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Save it for the DU


23 posted on 03/19/2005 3:47:26 AM PST by Jeff Gordon (Recall Barbara Boxer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Soldiers have told Donnelly that the new collocation rule is insane. An infantry officer described what evacuating the 24 women in these units will mean: "[Removing] 24 fully loaded soldiers [would require] two Blackhawk helicopters, six Huey helicopters, one Chinook helicopter, two 5-ton (or LMTV) trucks, 12 up-armored HMMWV's (with a full crew of three) and four to six unarmored HMMWV's to move. These are assets that cannot be spared simply to move females to the rear. In combat, helicopters are preferable but a very scarce asset. Imagine an entire brigade trying to chopper out these female contingents before combat -- it would require almost half of a division's worth of aviation assets to move them all at once."

Wow! Talk about exagerration. Why all that to move 24 women? Wouldn't a couple of truck do it?

24 posted on 03/19/2005 3:57:36 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

ping and opinion needed.


25 posted on 03/19/2005 3:58:42 AM PST by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I am confused, the women volunteered to join the Military to do what and for what reason? This article appears to be nothing more than crap. A hit piece that refutes itself.
Where are the Feminist who are invariably singing, I am Woman, hear me roar...are they barricaded at Harvard?
26 posted on 03/19/2005 4:19:18 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

For feminists it is self over mission. "I want to be in combat to advance my career" is the feminist mantra. Bull hockey.


27 posted on 03/19/2005 4:23:42 AM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2; nickcarraway; raybbr; jaykay; Nuzcruizer; gakrak; Squantos; Travis McGee; Jeff Head
Maybe I live in the past, but having had females work for me in the military in what used to be traditional male roles, I agree on bringing back the traditional WAC, WAVE, WAF and Women Marines. The PCness of having women prove themselves in combat (okay - combat support) is putting the lives of warfighters at risk.

The places I had females working for me was always in combat support. They were assigned, so took up an actual slot on the MTOE that used to be a male. Then along comes something that requires a little more upper body strength, like moving an 11:00 X 22 mounted tire and I would have to have a male do it. At that time there were about 6 or 8 soldiers assigned, my fear was what if they were all female? Who would do the heavy lifting?

I guess it is good that I retired from wearing BDU's several years ago. What type of military are we leaving to our grandchildren? I hope they take Chinese is school, I fear they will need it.
28 posted on 03/19/2005 4:43:26 AM PST by SLB ("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Nickdoggie: Here we go again Nickie!
A "Clinton Feminist Dream" turned into a "Bush Nightmare"?

Let's guess? You majored in "Telegraphing Your Punches"?

Anxiously awaiting your next morsel on the "Bush Military".


29 posted on 03/19/2005 5:42:43 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CBart95

'Course, I risk being knighted a dreaded "TROLL" by the ever even-handed, no agenda, totally balanced, ever-deadpanned Sir Nick.

"We love you Nicky! Oh! Yes We Do!


30 posted on 03/19/2005 5:53:20 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Do they get paid the same??????

THEY DO?????

Then shut up.


31 posted on 03/19/2005 5:54:11 AM PST by E.Allen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuzcruizer

Why should this be pulled? It shows examples of how sad sack our all volunteer military has become. I can imagine the women are in the roles that they are because recruitment marks can't be met if women weren't in very near combat slots. It is a simple matter of filling slots with personnel so that no mentions of a draft will be heard.
Women don't belong in many of the roles that they are filling.
If you don't want to see information that you don't agree with, FR isn't the place for you.


32 posted on 03/19/2005 5:59:32 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SLB
I hope they take Chinese is school, I fear they will need it.

BTTT

33 posted on 03/19/2005 6:17:31 AM PST by Gritty ("Outside our shores there is a growing barbarism with no other sheriff in sight"-VD Hanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

Authoritative commentary about the appropriate allocation of female personnel in military operations are probably appropriate if uttered or offered by authorized and qualified types. It's difficult to be sure when this subject comes up in the context of a deliberate smear piece aimed at discrediting our administration in time of war.
As we are still "at war", remarks that insinuate incompetance and ulterior motives on the part of our country's leaders or that characterize the sacrifices made in combat as "Sad Sack" by our so-called volunteer army might be be recieved without some understandable opposition.
Inviting persons one disagrees with to leave the room simply because they disagree may strike some as inappropriate and somehow missing the point of having a forum dedicated to free speech and the expression of differing points of view.


34 posted on 03/19/2005 6:32:27 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Exaggeration - I thought the same thing. Maybe the "and" at the end should have been an "or".
35 posted on 03/19/2005 8:14:31 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Who forced any of these women to enlist? Who forced them to have children while still serving in the military? Seems to me we live in a country where people are free to make these types of decisions. The person sitting in the WH has nothing to do with it.


36 posted on 03/19/2005 8:19:30 AM PST by Trust but Verify (Pull up a chair and watch history being made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

What kind of military do you think we'll have if they are NOT volunteers? The kind we had back in 'Nam? No thanks.


37 posted on 03/19/2005 8:22:51 AM PST by Trust but Verify (Pull up a chair and watch history being made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jaykay
"If a female service member is in Iraq, regardless of location or MOS, she is potentially in a combat area."

There were women at Tan Son Nhut, Camran (sp?) Bay, and various other large/rear area posts in Vietnam. Ain't exactly new.

That said, I'd feel lots better with a 190 pound guy next to me than a "mother of two" when it got up close and personal.

38 posted on 03/19/2005 8:35:47 AM PST by norton (build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
You misunderstand. No one is saying the women were forced, they are saying the military was forced to change it's policies, by Clinton at the feminists' behest. If you claim that we live in a country that people are free to make decisions, why should our military be forced to make decisions against what they think is in our best interest.

The person sitting in the WH has nothing to do with it.

Wrong. President Clinton enacted this policy, that earlier President like Reagan refused to. (Even Carter didn't do it.) We need to get rid of Clinton-era impositions on our military.

39 posted on 03/19/2005 10:19:42 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify

You miss the point. Women must be used in advanced positions so that the recruitment objectives can be met.
Now for the other portion of your question. What the hell was wrong with the Vietnan era military? Just because we fought a war that was sold down the river by pack of spineless politicians doesn't diminish the quality of the forces involved or their spirit and heart.


40 posted on 03/19/2005 11:07:44 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Why all that to move 24 women?

I wondered about that -- maybe there's a typo and it should be "or" instead of "and."

41 posted on 03/19/2005 12:18:12 PM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

The quality of the soldiers vs what we have to day was appalling. Why? Because most were there against their will. Drugs, etc were rampant. I don't fault the soldier, I fault the notion of forcing someone to do something they have no desire to do.


42 posted on 03/19/2005 1:34:29 PM PST by Trust but Verify (Pull up a chair and watch history being made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The girls want to play soldier, let them have full, equal opportunity.


43 posted on 03/19/2005 2:27:54 PM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

." She can be an admin REMF "

¿Can a REMF be a she?


44 posted on 03/19/2005 2:28:21 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT (Sane, and have the papers to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stm
There are indeed Women Marines flying combat missions as well. Captain Vernice Armour is one of them.


Marine Capt. Vernice Armour is the Department of Defense's first black female combat pilot. She flies AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters like this one at the Camp Pendleton airstrip.
Photo:CHARLIE NEUMAN / Union-Tribune

45 posted on 03/19/2005 2:37:35 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify

I disagree. There were the problems you mention but as a percentage of the total number of military personnel it was relatively small.
From my perspective the problems were abetted by a lax command structure. Too many officers weren't willing to take the measures necessary to clean out the ranks.
Support for trouble makers by leftist politicians indeed made the problems occur more frequently than one could expect.


46 posted on 03/19/2005 5:29:57 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DUMBGRUNT

Yes she can. Remember Billy Jean King's sponsor, Snap on Tools?
What key strokes do you use to get the Spanish style question mark in your sentences? Private reply, O.K..


47 posted on 03/19/2005 5:37:34 PM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

ALT 168
Hold down the ALT key and 1 6 8

http://www.coloryourprofyle.com/phade/alt.html


48 posted on 03/19/2005 5:52:24 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT (Sane, and have the papers to prove it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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

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

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