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

Skip to comments.

No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)
World Net Daily.com ^ | 08/08/05 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop

I don't know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the "conservatives" who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The conservatives eagerly jumped in to throw their support to the unknown John Roberts as soon as the choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was announced.

On what basis? The guy was a blank slate – like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before him.

Then, last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He did his job well. But he didn't serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.

The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States.

There was some immediate concern expressed by conservatives following the story. But after being assured by the White House that everything was all right, they quickly fell into line, quietly paving the way for what I predict will be a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate.

Some conservatives even suggested the story in the L.A. Times was designed to divide conservatives. If that isn't a case of blaming the messenger! No, the point of the L.A. Times story was to bring the Democrats on board – to reassure them that Roberts is definitely in the mold of Souter and Kennedy.

As disappointing as Bush has been as president, I really didn't expect him to nominate a constitutionalist to replace O'Connor.

But the vast majority of establishment conservative leaders have no idea how they are being manipulated.

It's really sad.

They simply buy into the White House talking points, which say Roberts was merely being a good soldier for his law firm.

Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds. That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients.

Now that would be the kind of jurist I could support to serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment.

Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity.

"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level."

Keep in mind the intent and result of this case. It overturned a provision of the Colorado Constitution that blocked special rights for people based on their sexual proclivities.

Roberts did not have a moral problem with that. He did not have a moral problem with helping those activists win a major battle in the culture war. He did not have a moral problem with using the Supreme Court to interfere in the sovereign decisions of a sovereign people in a sovereign state. He did not have a moral problem coaching homosexual activists on how to play politics with the court.

This was not just an "intellectual exercise," as some have suggested. Roberts' actions had real impact on the future of our nation.

He ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic. In some dioceses, he would be denied communion for his betrayal of his faith.

He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.

Sad. Tragic. Pathetic.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assininearticle; bamboozled; biasedlies; blatanthorsefeathers; constructionist; dnctalkingpoints; dramaqueens; farah; farahisright; farahsanass; farahsnoconservative; farahsonkoolaid; farahvotednader; fastone; goodforfarah; isthisaconservative; joescracked; joespathetic; johngroberts; johnroberts; josephfarah; moonbat; pissonfarah; presidentbush; rubbish; scotus; scotuslist; sheeple; stealthcandidate; wingnut; worldnetdaily; worthlessjunk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-346 next last
Joseph Farah points out John G. Roberts is hardly a strict constructionist. The point of the Los Angeles Times story about his pro bono work on Roemer v Evans wasn't to divide conservatives but rather to reassure the Left the guy is a safe candidate in the mold of Souter and Kennedy. A stealth candidate. Can conservatives name ONE thing Roberts has done to prove he's committed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution? If he gets a unanimous vote in the Senate we may find we have been had. So in fact if conservatives have been bamboozled by the White House, they'll have no one to blame for the resultant fiasco but themselves.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
1 posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

So what would you suggest?


2 posted on 08/07/2005 10:23:45 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
Like Ann Coulter wrote, it would have been better to have a candidate with proven conservative bonafides. At least the fight would have been worth it. We don't know anything about Roberts and have no idea how he'll vote when he gets on the court. Let's pray Farah and the skeptics like Ann are wrong about him.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
3 posted on 08/07/2005 10:26:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Mark Levin, Justice Robert Bork, Ted Olsen and many other stellar Conservatives back Judge Roberts and I'll take their advice long before I would Joseph Farah's

Farah is a fair weather friend to Conservatives at best.

4 posted on 08/07/2005 10:27:13 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I don't know who makes me sicker –

Farah makes me pretty sick.

5 posted on 08/07/2005 10:28:12 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
A stealth candidate.

That is utter rubbish.

The FIRST thing that was on the mind of this White House was to make sure that this guy WAS NOT a stealth candidate.

But Chuck Schumer thanks you for your help!

6 posted on 08/07/2005 10:29:36 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

I think that all that we have worked for is at risk with this nomination. I think that Farah is correct. If he is correct, then what a bitter blow. However, I can't believe that Bush could or would be so "off the mark". Why or how could he be?


7 posted on 08/07/2005 10:29:55 PM PDT by Saynotosocialism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Ann Coulter is justified in her concerns, but why does she ignore the "Proven" Conservatives who know Judge Roberts. I think Ann Coulter is one of the best on our side, but I think she is letting the nightmare of Suitor cloud her judgment
8 posted on 08/07/2005 10:30:14 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?


9 posted on 08/07/2005 10:30:20 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; FreeReign
To: Mo1
Exactly how much time to Roberts spend on this case ?? I thought I heard on the radio it was about 6 hours .. that ain't a awhole of time for a lawyer in a case this big

Yes, I'd like to know the specific number of hours too. But aparently it wasn't a lot. In fact it was less than other cases. I saw this quote:

Also, it was described in one article that Roberts time spent was actually playing the role of Justice Scalia in a mock SC hearing.

Imagine that, Hogan and Hartson's Pro Bono department (H & H being the firm that Roberts worked for), asks Roberts to help out by playing Scalia in a SC hearing. Sounds to me like Roberts is a Scalia-type and the Pro Bono department knows it.

146 posted on 08/06/2005 12:07:34 PM EDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

10 posted on 08/07/2005 10:31:08 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

If Roberts is not a conservative Justice, Pres. Bush is a failure.

He better be.


11 posted on 08/07/2005 10:31:59 PM PDT by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam (check out www.prophetofdoom.net))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?

You know what I agree with? I agree that if it wasn't those two cases, you'd have found something ELSE to trash him with. Period.

12 posted on 08/07/2005 10:31:59 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Well, he's still is right - what do people know about his core values and his real beliefs? That's exactly the point. Its significant he worked in a case in which the SCOTUS later overturned the will of the people, which later gave us legalized sodomy anf may well establish gay marriage as the law of the land. The point is if he objected to advancing the liberal agenda, he didn't have to. I have a doubt about a person committed to judicial supremacy. Granted, its just one case but for the Left, that may be all they need to know he won't be a threat to them when he gets on the bench.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
13 posted on 08/07/2005 10:32:28 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Saynotosocialism
I think that all that we have worked for is at risk with this nomination.

C R A P.

14 posted on 08/07/2005 10:33:27 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Yup, That's what I concluded as well
15 posted on 08/07/2005 10:33:45 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
No, I don't. Conservatives better make sure their congressional representatives don't ask him softball questions. If it turns out he may be a judicial activist in disguise, the hearings are the time to find out about it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
16 posted on 08/07/2005 10:34:46 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
what do people know about his core values and his real beliefs?

You mean what do you know about him?

Or do you take George W. Bush to be a fool?

17 posted on 08/07/2005 10:34:49 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Not to mention Roberts has the complete support of Dobson and the Family Research Council.

Roberts is a solid Reaganite. Just because he did some pro-gay legal work ten years ago, doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.


18 posted on 08/07/2005 10:36:03 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Frankly, I am stunned at people who I thought had sense falling for this crap.

These ARE the Democratic talking points -- only it's people who say they are conservatives mouthing them.


19 posted on 08/07/2005 10:36:11 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Can you really guarantee he will vote like Scalia and Thomas? That's a big assumption to make. Scalia and Thomas had a long paper trail and a proven history of conservative activism behind them before they got on the Supreme Court. In contrast, Roberts is a blank slate. Any one can read anything they want into him.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
20 posted on 08/07/2005 10:36:56 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

You have fr mail


21 posted on 08/07/2005 10:38:40 PM PDT by SoCalPol (More Died At Chappaquiddic than Guantanamo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Per Washington Post:
The White House said Roberts worked on the 1996 case for less than 10 hours and that he always agreed when someone at his law firm asked for help on a pro bono case in his area of expertise, appellate and Supreme Court arguments.

22 posted on 08/07/2005 10:39:28 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What do you know about him? Can any one explain to me, on the basis of what we know about Roberts, what he believes in about the role of the courts, the federal government, states' rights, national security, environmental protection, social issues, and personal liberties? We don't have a record of his stands on any of those issues. As Ann Coulter wrote, its hard to believe he went through life without ever once enraging liberals and there's plenty to upset them.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
23 posted on 08/07/2005 10:40:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Never mind all that now.

These people NEED something -- anything -- to bash this good man with.


24 posted on 08/07/2005 10:40:31 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Saynotosocialism
However, I can't believe that Bush could or would be so "off the mark". Why or how could he be?

Roberts may yet turn out to be okay. We have no alternative but to wait. Bush has made his decision and will not recall it. And, as Farah points out, Roberts' support from Senate Democrats will be unanimous or close to it.

If Roberts turns out to be a mistake like Souter we'll be stuck with it for 30-35 years at least. That's long enough to ensure the social liberal agenda becomes a permanent and unchallengeable part of our laws and lives and the lives of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

May God have mercy on us and this nation and may He guide George W. Bush appropriately to that end.

25 posted on 08/07/2005 10:40:39 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Can you really guarantee he will vote like Scalia and Thomas?

I can't guarantee a damn thing, up to and including that I will live to see the shuttle land tonight.

FGS, run for office if you think you can do a better job.

In contrast, Roberts is a blank slate.

No kidding? Then why did you put this thread up? I mean, are we or are we not DISCUSSING some of his legal work?

Any one can read anything they want into him.

So I see; even things that are not there.

Frankly, I'm sick of all of you who have to find SOMETHING to carp about in every single issue.

26 posted on 08/07/2005 10:43:09 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Here's the new World Net Daily home page:


27 posted on 08/07/2005 10:43:21 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (If there was a problem, yo! I'll solve it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I guess now Jerry Falwell is also a liberal.


28 posted on 08/07/2005 10:43:21 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

LOL!


29 posted on 08/07/2005 10:44:20 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Huh?


30 posted on 08/07/2005 10:44:43 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Conservatives Remain Steady In Support of Roberts, Washington Post

Excepting those who've bought into the LA Times line of bullcrap...

31 posted on 08/07/2005 10:45:03 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
No one's disputing his character. What we have questions about are his stands on the issues of concern to us. This guy could serve an entire lifetime on the court. And he should take the time to explain his judicial philosophy and where the courts fit into the picture. We don't want to find out later we put another judicial activist on the court. Responsible criticism isn't mindless bashing of another human being. Better safe than sorry.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
32 posted on 08/07/2005 10:45:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
This article is sad. How easily a single case is found that can be construed to favor gays, so split off the anti-gays from the strict constructionists.

I do not hold that we should put on the Court only judges who oppose gays in all cases. I hold that we should put on the Court only judges who uphold the constitution in all cases.

Now and then, anyone, even gays, may find that the plain text of the constitution is on their side in a case. So be it.

The gay baiting of this post and its transparent use as a tool to divide us is disgusting.

Here is the summary text of the actual ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) Supreme Court decision:


Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.

A clear and substantial case is made here that the Colorado Ammendment 2 violated the plain text of the 14th Ammendment.
33 posted on 08/07/2005 10:45:55 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
So Farah wants a date with Coulter,big deal.

It's simple,either support the president and his nominee,or don't.

Farah doesn't,I do.Screw Farah.

34 posted on 08/07/2005 10:46:15 PM PDT by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon Turtle Co.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Falwell supports Roberts and had no problem with his work on some of these cases - therefore, Falwell must be a stealth liberal.


35 posted on 08/07/2005 10:46:39 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
What we have questions about are his stands on the issues of concern to us.

Why is it that your "concerns" are so much more important than people who have actually dealt with this man and who actually know what kind of lawyer he is? You know, the people who support him?

What should anybody give a rat's butt what Ann Coulter or Joe Farah or Carl Limbacher think about this guy?

P.S. Roe v. Wade is NEVER going to be overturned, so if that's what you're looking for you're going to be disappointed for the rest of your life.

36 posted on 08/07/2005 10:48:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

I agree... I'll go with Mark Levin's opinion anytime.


37 posted on 08/07/2005 10:48:35 PM PDT by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Same goes for James Dobson. Guess Dobson's a lib. Plus Roberts worked for Reagan. Reagan must have been a stealth liberal as well.


38 posted on 08/07/2005 10:48:59 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Seriously, WND was once the premier Internet news site of its kind. We supported Farah when Clinton unleashed his IRS goons on him; furthermore WND single-handedly caused Gore to lose TN in the 2000 election over his landlord scandal.

Now I understand that Farah is lukewarm in his support of Bush, as I am, but c'mon. Every thing Bush has done Farah has resorted to wild-eyed conspiracy shilling that makes a New York Times article look as if it was written by Ann Coulter.

Hence, the Weekly World News graphic...

39 posted on 08/07/2005 10:49:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (If there was a problem, yo! I'll solve it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
P.S. Roe v. Wade is NEVER going to be overturned

Of course it could be. Bush has the power to make that happen with his appointments.

40 posted on 08/07/2005 10:49:57 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Short of joining with Schumer and opposing Robert's I just don't see what is to be done about this. I would rather have another Souter than join Schumer in anything, but I don't see any real evidence that Robert's is bad for the conservative cause. Pro bono representation does not imply an endorsement.


41 posted on 08/07/2005 10:50:00 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
No one's disputing his character. What we have questions about are his stands on the issues of concern to us. This guy could serve an entire lifetime on the court. And he should take the time to explain his judicial philosophy and where the courts fit into the picture. We don't want to find out later we put another judicial activist on the court. Responsible criticism isn't mindless bashing of another human being. Better safe than sorry.

That's a bunch of baloney - as proven by your having posted this in your title:

Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert

And Joseph Farah is full of crap.

42 posted on 08/07/2005 10:50:22 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

The only interesting thing I find about this "article" is the fact the WND appears to have run out of crackpot conspiracy theories and National Enquirer level investigative reporting (at least for the time being). However, I'm sure I won't need to wait long before I once again will have the "pleasure" of reading "breaking news" from WND about Bigfoot, Martian invaders or something similar.


43 posted on 08/07/2005 10:50:35 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Reagan put Kennedy on the Court.


44 posted on 08/07/2005 10:50:57 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
When the will of the people is in clear violation of the plain text of the Constitution, then that law cannot stand. That's why we live in a constitutional republic, not a simply democracy. Just because the talking heads on TV connect one case favorable to gays with the next such case, does not in anyway mean that the legal principles deciding one also decided the next.
45 posted on 08/07/2005 10:51:06 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
You know, I know I'll be hammered for this -- and even thought it sounds like Roberts did paper pushing only on Romer vs. Evans, if I am reading that case correctly, I just may agree with their position.

I don't believe ANYBODY should be purposefully discriminated against with regard to housing or employment because of their sexual orientation. Period.

46 posted on 08/07/2005 10:51:21 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Shortstop7

So will I ... go with Mark Levin's opinion.


47 posted on 08/07/2005 10:52:13 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

If they struck it down tomorrow, abortion will still be legal in 50 states.


48 posted on 08/07/2005 10:52:20 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Misery makes some folks mighty happy


49 posted on 08/07/2005 10:52:38 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Farah = part-time wing-nut


50 posted on 08/07/2005 10:53:22 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (fiat voluntas Tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-346 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