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

Skip to comments.

Confirm Roberts(The Left Angeles Times no less!)
The Los Angeles Times(no less) ^ | September 20, 2005 | staff

Posted on 09/20/2005 6:18:43 AM PDT by kellynla

IT WILL BE A DAMNING INDICTMENT of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.

Most Democrats have not indicated how they will vote later this week in the Judiciary Committee, or subsequently on the Senate floor. The angst expressed by some senators who feel caught between the pressure of liberal interest groups and their own impression of Roberts is comically overwrought. "I for one have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

One reason Democratic senators are struggling to reach a verdict on the Roberts nomination is that President Bush has yet to announce his nominee for the second vacancy on the court. They are trying to figure out how their vote on Roberts will influence Bush's next choice. This is silly; Roberts ought to be considered on his own merits. But even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game, voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage. If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over Roberts.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; endorsement; johnroberts; roberts; robertshearings; scotus; supremes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
The LAT follows suit of Boston Globe & Wash Post in support of Roberts...I'm starting to worry about this. LOL Seriously IMO, the Lefties are keeping their powder dry for the next candidate for the Suprememes.
1 posted on 09/20/2005 6:18:44 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Broder yesterday in the WaPo, and now the LA Times today. I hope to God we don't get another Souter or Kennedy.


2 posted on 09/20/2005 6:23:13 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Even if the Donks vote for him, they will have revealed themselves as "nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists."


3 posted on 09/20/2005 6:24:28 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

The Lefties couldn't find any dirt on this man so they'll wait for the next candidate to dig in their heels(pun intended LOL)!


4 posted on 09/20/2005 6:27:38 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; All


.

Oh, the Times ..they are a'changing:


Kinsley leaves the Times

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484275/posts


.


5 posted on 09/20/2005 6:27:57 AM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"starting to worry about this"

Stealth candidates with no record should be something to worry about. A true conservative would have all of these paper's up in arms and fighting tooth and nail to defeat him. If you think the democrats are picking up the "Republican" play book of pandering, I think you should think again. They have had one play book. Obstruction. Worry? I should hope so. Everyone is basing their ideas of Roberts from perspectives of 'hope' and 'faith' and no facts.
6 posted on 09/20/2005 6:29:52 AM PDT by commonguymd (My impatience is far more advanced than any known technology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commonguymd
A true conservative would have all of these paper's up in arms and fighting tooth and nail to defeat him.

You mean like Supreme Court Justice Bork?

7 posted on 09/20/2005 6:32:08 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The Boston Globe as well wants the rancor to stop and the votes cast overwhelmingly for Roberts. The biggest reason of course, not because they know Roberts is anathema to their belief system, but because any more questions, comments, and posturing against this nomination shows how out of touch the new mainstream Democrats, as led by the Senators from California and Mrs. Clinton, are with respect to the mainstream voter who will turn out in droves next election.
8 posted on 09/20/2005 6:37:28 AM PDT by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The other perspective on this is that the MSM toilet rags made a choice to side with the radical left. They have put all their chips there -- at the same time, they are worried about how radical and non-sensical the far-left Dims have become.

Trashing Roberts would be the MOST STUPID thing they can do -- the rags know it. Just like the highly calculating, power-centric Marxist Medusa knows it. He will be confirmed with the radical Dims hating every minute of it...


9 posted on 09/20/2005 6:38:38 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I agree. they know this battle is lost.

Fall back and prepare for the next nomination.

But they have no guarantee they will do better the next time.


10 posted on 09/20/2005 6:39:12 AM PDT by Cheburashka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; conservativecorner

I'm thinking of political things.

Evaluating O'Connor and Alberto Gonzalez, I'd say that on a 10 point conservative scale (10 high) that Gonzalez is a closer to a 10 than was O'Connor. I consider O'Connor to be a wishy-washy 5...maybe even a 4+ Gonzalez, though, is a 6- or maybe even a solid 6.

This concession to the president is made strategically. IF the president will use his 3rd choice for a strong conservative, then I'm willing to gamble. My reasons:

1. There is a real possibility of another vacancy on Scotus. Some are ill, some are aged, some might just be tired. Many, though, are Republican. The most eligible of them could be given the back-channel message that it's time for them to take one for the team and step down.

2. The midterm elections need something to fire up the base. A knockdown dragout fight over crucial conservative issues would do just that. That would turn out the base and conceivably lead to a filibuster proof Senate after Republican gains. OR...in order to avoid just such a thing, the Dems could back off and let the 3rd selection glide on through.

Given the above, I'd support the president naming Alberto Gonzalez to the Supreme Court with his 2nd selection. It has some possibilities for misfiring, but strategically it makes sense, AND Gonzalez is more to the right than is O'Connor....which is not hard to do. Gonzalez would get quick confirmation.

This would open the way for a quick vacancy if one of the remaining Scotus team-members would play with the team. This could be determined before this step is taken.


11 posted on 09/20/2005 6:40:34 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

"Broder yesterday in the WaPo, and now the LA Times today. I hope to God we don't get another Souter or Kennedy."

The MSM is setting Roberts up as a moderate so the next candidate can be labeled too extreme.

Miquel Estrada please report to the green room.



12 posted on 09/20/2005 6:42:01 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: commonguymd

One thing I got from the Roberts hearing. Roberts is going to call them as he sees them. If the ruling is against something the right wants, you at least can be sure Roberts weighed everything based on the Constitution and not the ACLU.


13 posted on 09/20/2005 6:43:31 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Marc Steyn says Schumer looks like an accountant for the Mafia. If Schumer votes "yes," he'll get whacked by the people who actually run the Dim party.


14 posted on 09/20/2005 6:47:38 AM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The LAT follows suit of Boston Globe & Wash Post in support of Roberts...I'm starting to worry about this.

So am I. I have a nagging feeling that we're being given another Souter.

Let's see, Ann Coulter is against him and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times are for him.

Wasn't that the case with John Kerry?

15 posted on 09/20/2005 6:52:25 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The angst expressed by some senators who feel caught between the pressure of liberal interest groups and their own impression of Roberts is comically overwrought...

NARAL is gonna be PO'ed.

16 posted on 09/20/2005 6:55:22 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
I wasn't around much for the Souter hearings. Maybe someone could clue me in on the details and correct me. Wasn't he considered a constitutionalist, constructionist or a traditionalist? The press called him a stealth candidate, and everyone assumed that he was conservative because George Bush nominated him. He started out that way, but over the years drifted to the left.

I refuse to believe or accept that conservative ideas and beliefs must be hidden and that we must rely on innuendo and faith when a candidate is introduced. Nobody had a problem with Ginsburg knowing full well that she was liberal. Hasn't it been proved that conservative ideas win every time they are tried?

17 posted on 09/20/2005 6:59:57 AM PDT by commonguymd (My impatience is far more advanced than any known technology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TBP

I hear Roberts will be more like Kennedy than Souter. Either way, George W. Bush betrayed conservatives by nominating Roberts. Ann Coulter was right to be worried.


18 posted on 09/20/2005 7:01:39 AM PDT by TSchmereL (words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Looks like a Souter or a Kennedy is what we're going to get, because if the left thought Roberts was a Thomas or Scalia, they'd be going all out to destroy him. This is NOT a good thing.


19 posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:43 AM PDT by Bombardier ("Religion of Peace" my butt.....sell that snakeoil to someone who'll believe it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

A stopped clock is accurate twice a day. The rest of the time it is wrong. That is my view of these dinosaur media newspapers.


20 posted on 09/20/2005 7:05:14 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bombardier

On the other hand, maybe Roberts is a stealth conservative, but I don't know if we have ever seen a stealth conservative before. Stealth liberals are more common. The troubling thing is that there is no reason why we should have ever had to doubt that George W. Bush was nominating a conservative. The truth is that nobody knows for sure where Roberts will go, but if the past is any indicator of the future, prepare to be disappointed.


21 posted on 09/20/2005 7:08:56 AM PDT by TSchmereL (words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: commonguymd
Maybe someone could clue me in on the details and correct me.

Well all the usual suspects had their outrageous hypberbolic prognositcations that as soon as Souter was confirmed the Civil Rights Act would be overturned, Roe v Wade would be reversed, women would be turned into sex slaves, (I made that last one up, but it was in the penumbras of their arguments), etc.

22 posted on 09/20/2005 7:11:30 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"I for one have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Of course: he is absolutely committed to his core to voting against ANY Republican nominee, yet realizes there is absolutely no sane argument for voting against Roberts, and he'll look like a whiny brat if he fails to approve Roberts.

Bush: dumb like a fox.

23 posted on 09/20/2005 7:16:14 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

No, more like Roberts will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc. Robert is in the legal mainstream - more is the pity. What we need is another Justice Thomas.


24 posted on 09/20/2005 7:31:26 AM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
The Boston Globe as well wants the rancor to stop and the votes cast overwhelmingly for Roberts. The biggest reason of course, not because they know Roberts is anathema to their belief system, but because any more questions, comments, and posturing against this nomination shows how out of touch the new mainstream Democrats, as led by the Senators from California and Mrs. Clinton, are with respect to the mainstream voter who will turn out in droves next election.

BINGO! They have been looking very juvenile lately.

25 posted on 09/20/2005 7:44:53 AM PDT by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The MSM is raising the White Flag of Surrender, hoping it will make them look more reasonable as they try to Bork the next nominee.


26 posted on 09/20/2005 7:55:22 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion they will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

I wasn't talking about Roberts' agenda/style/whatever.
I was talking about Schumer's head exploding because Bush was actually clever enough to put up a nominee that Schumer can't object to without looking like an idiot.

Whether I like Roberts for SCOTUS is a different matter.
As JFK's father said: "I want to buy a win, not a landslide."
I'd rather see a candidate so blatantly a strict Constitutionalist that he gets nominated by a bare majority.


27 posted on 09/20/2005 8:18:14 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

"a candidate so blatantly a strict Constitutionalist that he gets nominated by a bare majority" I like the way you think.


28 posted on 09/20/2005 8:33:27 AM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over Roberts.

The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw. First, the LA Times decries voting for or against Roberts based on political considerations, and then in the next breath they attempt to direct their party toward the best strategy for Borking the next nominee. I truly hope Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court. The Democrats can drop dead. We won, they lost.

29 posted on 09/20/2005 8:43:19 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup
The MSM is raising the White Flag of Surrender, hoping it will make them look more reasonable as they try to Bork the next nominee.

Exactly correct.
We are about to see if Bush has any cajones.

30 posted on 09/20/2005 8:45:32 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Something not mentioned yet: Roberts is replacing Renquist; i.e., a conservative replacing a conservative. Not going to change the 'balance' of the court, and no more than they realistically could expect. Not worth really going to the mat for.

When Bush nominates a conservative to replace O'Conner, who will alter the 'balance', look for the real opposition to emerge; the left in full cry and attack ..

31 posted on 09/20/2005 8:56:02 AM PDT by MrNatural ("...You want the truth!?...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

"We won, they lost."

Something that escapes the Lefties, the MSM and the 'Rats in the Senate; those who win elections get to run the show and select judges and candidates for the Supremes!


32 posted on 09/20/2005 9:04:17 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
Roberts will be more like Rehnquist than Scalia, with some twists. Rehnquist was not protective of civil liberties, such as in forfeiture cases. He was a government man. Roberts' ability to analyse cases without a pro-government bias will mean that on some of these issues, he will be better than Rehnquist. His testimony was exactly correct even if he does believe that Roe v. Wade was an abomination. His views on stare decisis and the process of judging were spot on. The question that you are concerned about is, would stare decisis hold up Roe v. Wade. And I am here to tell you, it will not hold up under critical analysis any more than Plessy v. Ferguson held up.

Roberts will be more politic in how he goes about eliminating the liberal legacy of lawlessness on the court, but that is probably what is needed, a slow, step by step approach. People don't understand constitutional law, and we can't rip out 70 years of unconstitutional decisions overnight.

33 posted on 09/20/2005 10:00:20 AM PDT by Defiant (Dar al Salaam will exist when the entire world submits to American leadership.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrNatural
When Bush nominates a conservative to replace O'Conner, who will alter the 'balance', look for the real opposition to emerge; the left in full cry and attack ..

When Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown to replace Ginsburg, just sit back and enjoy the reaction. I can't wait to have the judicial debate between the lightweights on the committee and a brilliant black woman. That right there might be worth a few percentage points among black voters.

34 posted on 09/20/2005 10:03:16 AM PDT by Defiant (Dar al Salaam will exist when the entire world submits to American leadership.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
....those who win elections get to run the show and select judges and candidates for the Supremes!

Bush should nominate Diana Ross for the Supremes.
THAT would sure confuse the rats.

35 posted on 09/20/2005 11:29:33 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Personally, I would like to see Mark Levin nominated...
now that would give the 'Rats a cardiac! LMAO
but I could live with any conservative ...






36 posted on 09/20/2005 11:44:13 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; republicofdavis

scary. A man is sometimes known by those who admire him.


37 posted on 09/20/2005 7:41:30 PM PDT by tame (CINOs: do you really want a SCOTUS nominee who "pleasantly surprised" Chuck Schumer at the hearings?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL

Another Anthony Kennedy is not what we need or want either, and it's not what Bush promised us. What is needed is a constitutionalist, an originalist, a strict constructionist. Some things that Roberts says sound very much like that, but other things sound very much unlike it.

Why do conservatives blindly support these nominees?

I remember when Young Americans for Freedom came out against O'Connor (I was on the Platform Committee that year.) YAF wa routinely cursed up anbd down in the movement. I remember when the Conservative Caucus came out against Souter and people practically read them out of the conservative movement for daring to oppose a Republican Supremem Court nominee.

We were right about these nominees. I hope that conservatives like Coulter, Farah, and others are wrong about this nominee, but experience tells me that they're probably right.


38 posted on 09/20/2005 9:11:22 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

And the LAT and the others are just giving them cover (and gritting their teeth doing it).


39 posted on 09/21/2005 9:44:17 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tame

I really can't believe you are still beating this drum


40 posted on 09/21/2005 12:40:17 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TBP

"Let's see, Ann Coulter is against him and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times are for him."

Is this your idea of analysis? Don't you think you should have included all the conservatives who are for him?


41 posted on 09/21/2005 12:43:34 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL

"I hear Roberts will be more like Kennedy than Souter."

From whom? Anybody you heard that from is talking out of their hat.


42 posted on 09/21/2005 12:44:58 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RKV

"No, more like Roberts will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."

Nonsense. He's already voted in a way that would limit congressional use of the Commerce Clause. Why do you ignore that?


43 posted on 09/21/2005 12:46:37 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: republicofdavis

Because he said so in his testimony to the Senate during his recent confirmation hearings. That's why.


44 posted on 09/21/2005 1:15:17 PM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Right. He said "I will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."

C'mon what did he really say? And again, why ignore his actual record?


45 posted on 09/21/2005 1:44:26 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: republicofdavis

read my prior message or don't expect a reply


46 posted on 09/21/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Ok, the L.A. Times is a bridge too far...time to pull Roberts.


47 posted on 09/21/2005 2:25:30 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: republicofdavis


http://instapundit.com/archives/025576.php

SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you, then, this hypothetical: And that is that it came to our attention, Congress', through a relatively and inexpensive, simple process, individuals were now able to clone certain species of animals, maybe an arroyo toad. Didn't pass over state lines; you could somehow do it without doing any of that. Under the commerce clause, can Congress pass a law banning even noncommercial cloning?

ROBERTS: I appreciate it's a hypothetical, and you will as well, so I don't mean to be giving bindings opinions. But it would seem to me that Congress can make a determination that this is an activity, if allowed to be pursued, that is going to have effects on interstate commerce. Obviously if you were successful in cloning an animal, that's not going to be simply a local phenomenon. That's going to be something people are going to...

SCHUMER: We can leave it at that. That's a good answer, as far as I am concerned.

As I said, his commerce clause jurisprudence is mainstream, and therefore questionable. If he gets along with Schumer, then he is not a conservative. GOT IT?
48 posted on 09/21/2005 2:28:07 PM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RKV

"read my prior message or don't expect a reply"

Wow, how arrogant you are.

All right I read your prior message. Not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. You said, in a nutshell, that Roberts said he would support unlimited commerce clause power and less protection under the bill of rights. I challenged you factually, both that he said such things and that his record led to an inference of the opposite.

Your most erudite response was "because he said so." I challenged you. You said read the prior post. I did. It's non-responsive.

So will I be lucky enough to have the favor of a reply since I followed your order?


49 posted on 09/21/2005 2:29:35 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Wait is your #48 the prior response I'm supposed to read? That's after this post.


50 posted on 09/21/2005 2:31:39 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 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