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

Skip to comments.

Court says parents not sole providers of kids' sex education
AP ^ | 11/2/5 | DAVID KRAVETS

Posted on 11/02/2005 2:26:45 PM PST by SmithL

an Francisco (AP) --

A federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by elementary school parents who were outraged that the Palmdale School District had surveyed students about sex.

While the surveys asked students how often they thought about sex, among other questions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said parents of public school children have no "fundamental right" to be the exclusive provider of sexual information to their children. The parents maintained they had the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."

The plaintiffs had sought unspecified monetary damages.

In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircus; firsttheycameforkids; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; nannystate; ninthcircuit; parentalrights; pspl; ruling; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; timetohomeschool
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last
The 9th circus, of course.
1 posted on 11/02/2005 2:26:46 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

He who pays the piper calls the tune.


2 posted on 11/02/2005 2:28:01 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Of course. Sigh. Just business as usual for these goofs.
3 posted on 11/02/2005 2:28:23 PM PST by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

So I guess the father who didn't want his young daughter exposed to books about homosexuals at school doesn't have the right to complain, either


4 posted on 11/02/2005 2:29:05 PM PST by half-cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Homeschool BUMP!


5 posted on 11/02/2005 2:29:19 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

seconded!


6 posted on 11/02/2005 2:30:25 PM PST by pipecorp (Let's have a CRUSADE! , the muslims have already started. 1800 replies and not a single post!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Savage: The 9th Jerk-it Court of Schlameels
7 posted on 11/02/2005 2:30:57 PM PST by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: half-cajun

Is this story actually true? I can't imagine anyone asking my students questions like these. It doesn't belong in an elementary school.


8 posted on 11/02/2005 2:31:15 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

"In upholding a lower court that had also ruled against the parents, a three-judge panel of the appeals court here dismissed the case, ruling unanimously that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."

Send your kids to public school and they cease to be yours any longer. Wards of the state.


9 posted on 11/02/2005 2:31:54 PM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

The Stench in the Bench is making me Clench! -- Savage


10 posted on 11/02/2005 2:31:57 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("Every time the court veers left, the people are overwhelmingly opposed." [Laura Ingraham])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

All your children are belong to us...


11 posted on 11/02/2005 2:32:48 PM PST by Lexington Green (Tell 'em lies and feed 'em candy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Palmdale's a pretty conservative town - they often open their city council meetings with prayer (or use to).


12 posted on 11/02/2005 2:33:12 PM PST by 11th_VA (Geezee Freepin Peezee ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

SCHOOL CHOICE! ... SCHOOL CHOICE! ... SCHOOL CHOICE!


13 posted on 11/02/2005 2:33:45 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("Every time the court veers left, the people are overwhelmingly opposed." [Laura Ingraham])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Sounds rather Communist to me.


14 posted on 11/02/2005 2:34:46 PM PST by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I am not about to panic by anything the 9th Circus Court says, but...

I hope some bright legal type can explain to me how the clowns found in the Constitution such a right accruing to schools when schools are not even mentioned in the Constitution.
An explanation is not too much to expect, is it?
I know it's called an opinion, but it can't be an arbitrary one.

15 posted on 11/02/2005 2:36:13 PM PST by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; SmithL

ping!


16 posted on 11/02/2005 2:37:17 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

While I don't like what the school district is doing, the proper course of action for the parents is either to (a) vote the idiots out (the school board in this case)or (b) educate your kids somewhere else. Like most of you, I don't want a court (especially the 9th Cir.) dictating what - and what not - is taught to my kids.


17 posted on 11/02/2005 2:37:41 PM PST by TaxMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy

Born 1931 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979, to a new seat created by 92 Stat. 1629; Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1980, and received commission on September 11, 1980.

Education:
Pomona College, B.A., 1951

Yale Law School, LL.B., 1954

Professional Career:
U.S. Air Force, 1954-1956
Law clerk, Hon. Luther W. Youngdahl, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1956-1957
Private practice, Los Angeles, California, 1957-1980

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male


18 posted on 11/02/2005 2:37:41 PM PST by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative; DaveLoneRanger; 2Jedismom; SmithL

Ping!


19 posted on 11/02/2005 2:37:59 PM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March

Dear Arthur Wildfire! March,

We pay our own piper, and call our own tune. We homeschool.


sitetest


20 posted on 11/02/2005 2:39:16 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."

What gives schools the "fundamental right"? What an upside-down world.

21 posted on 11/02/2005 2:39:34 PM PST by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Jeez, I didn't even know how about female "parts" and sex until about the 6th grade.

Now with wonders like internet porn and sex-ed, 1st graders are learning about it. Pretty soon middle school will become the next high-school.
22 posted on 11/02/2005 2:40:03 PM PST by varyouga (Reformed Kerry voter (I know, I'm a frickin' idiot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"Court says parents not sole providers of kids' sex education"

Well, duh, what do you think Playboy magazine and the back seat of cars are for?

23 posted on 11/02/2005 2:40:09 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My children will attend Government schools over my dead body.


24 posted on 11/02/2005 2:42:08 PM PST by Whitewasher (Would u like America to be a goat nation in the millennium to come? Keep pushing the "Roadmap" bull!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Reinhardt is the jerk who wrought the fairly recent opinion out of the 9th Cir. that the Constitution did not protect an individual's right to bear arms.


25 posted on 11/02/2005 2:42:18 PM PST by TaxMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
They do a drug and alcohol survey in our district among middle and high school. I don't know if it asks about sex because I have never let my child take it. Interestingly, they do not ask for permission slips; it is up to the parent to send in a no-go document. The questions are available but you do have to request them. What irks me, is the info is handed over to an outside psychologist at a university who is doing "research." My child is NOT a free research subject.

It does sound as if they notified the parents and they didn't bother to dig into it. NEVER trust schools. Do your homework and I include my child's former private school in that.

26 posted on 11/02/2005 2:44:35 PM PST by littleleaguemom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

bump


27 posted on 11/02/2005 2:44:51 PM PST by tuesday afternoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
They'll take God out of the Pledge and wipe Christmas and Easter off the school calenders, but discussions of sex to elementary school kids is A-OK.

Biological reproductive discussions I can understand from 5th grade or so, but that's about it.

28 posted on 11/02/2005 2:46:54 PM PST by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Send your kids to public school and they cease to be yours any longer. Wards of the state.

Only if you let them. My mother and father gave us the tools necessary to know what to do in the very few times we ran into different situations (note this includes the present). Such also prepared us for those we have run into later in life as well.


29 posted on 11/02/2005 2:47:40 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1301
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 3 circuits, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 23, 2005
Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 3 circuits, and for other purposes.
...

SEC. 3. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

...

(A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the following:
`Ninth

California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Marianas Islands.';


and

(B) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following:
`Twelfth

Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana.

`Thirteenth

Alaska, Oregon, Washington.'.

SEC. 4. JUDGESHIPS.

(a) NEW JUDGESHIPS- The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 5 additional circuit judges for the new ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty station shall be in California.

(b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS-

(1) APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES- The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional circuit judges for the former ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty stations shall be in California.

(2) EFFECT OF VACANCIES- The first 2 vacancies occurring on the new ninth circuit court of appeals 10 years or more after judges are first confirmed to fill both temporary circuit judgeships created by this subsection shall not be filled.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE- This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
...
SEC. 7. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service and whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act--

(1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Marianas Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date;

(2) is in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, or Montana shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date; and

(3) is in Alaska, Oregon, or Washington shall be a circuit judge of the thirteenth circuit as of such effective date.
...


30 posted on 11/02/2005 2:47:42 PM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxMe

I don't want a court (especially the 9th Cir.) dictating what - and what not - is taught to my kids.

I can agree with that.


31 posted on 11/02/2005 2:48:36 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Biological reproductive discussions I can understand from 5th grade or so, but that's about it.

That's what I agree with and what is done here. Students attend WITH THEIR PARENTS after school and it is NOT taught by teachers or any school personnel.


32 posted on 11/02/2005 2:50:12 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: moog

Reinhart is a dangerous man. His opinion should be a warning to all Americans just where these people would like to take this country.


33 posted on 11/02/2005 3:02:41 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

The judges are making an excellent case why the gov't can no longer run schools.


34 posted on 11/02/2005 3:03:09 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Reinhart is FOS.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

"The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." 521 U.S. at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302, 123 L. Ed. 2d 1, 113 S. Ct. 1439 (1993).

The liberty interest at issue in this case--the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." 268 U.S. at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." 321 U.S. at 166.

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct. 2493 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982) (discussing "the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."

35 posted on 11/02/2005 3:09:04 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: moog
Parents whose students took the survey signed consent forms, however the forms never mentioned sex would be a topic. Questions the children answered included whether they thought about having sex, thought about touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

This goes far beyond a biology discussion into unacceptable territory for any grade K~12.

36 posted on 11/02/2005 3:09:31 PM PST by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The school board is elected?


37 posted on 11/02/2005 3:11:37 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Reinhart is a dangerous man. His opinion should be a warning to all Americans just where these people would like to take this country. I had a post that I put here put on some liberal forum about my mom teaching us that sex was a good thing used in the proper context as an expression of love between a man and a wife. They pretty much ridiculed it. I can see your point there.

I had someone else HERE say to me that it was ridiculous not to live with your wife-to-be before you were married because you had to "try her out" first to see if you were compatible. I replied that my wife was more than a new car to me.

Wedding rings can be the best birth control (I guess that could go both ways--hehe).

38 posted on 11/02/2005 3:12:01 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TaxMe

The problem in our area (San Jose) is that most of the school board (4 out of 5 seats) are in the northern part of our school district that is dominated by Latinos.

We could vote someone reasonable in our area, but they would be useless.

We're trying to split our district, but we can't get enough volunteers to help with getting petitions signed.

A small group of us is now trying to start a charter school in our area.


39 posted on 11/02/2005 3:12:20 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bvw

This will be overturned in the SCOTUS even with 5 liberals.


40 posted on 11/02/2005 3:13:42 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
This goes far beyond a biology discussion into unacceptable territory for any grade K~12.

I'll agree with that. I would not have given the survey at all.

41 posted on 11/02/2005 3:14:11 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This decision was absolutely correct. Any other decision would have been judicial activism run wild.
The parents didn't like what their kids were being taught in public school. They didn't try to get the elected local school board to change it; they didn't take their kids out of public school and send them to private school or homeschool them. They sued in federal court for money damages. The 9th Circuit said there is no federal constitutional right to decide what your kids learn in public school (but also held that the parents can still sue in state court if they think state law was violated.)

If the federal court had ruled any other way, each parent could demand an individualized curriculum for their own child, and federal courts would be running every detail of every public school.


42 posted on 11/02/2005 3:19:20 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The government should be prohibited from mandating any portion of the curriculum taught in schools. Any politician or bureaucrat caught extending favors to influence or dissuade a curriculum should be fired.


43 posted on 11/02/2005 3:24:17 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The 9th Court. . .probably the 'field' from which Hillary will call forth a Supreme.. .should she have the chance. . .

Imagine a 'Supreme Court' fashioned with the same Leftist hand as the 9th'. . .a sadistic and. . .masochistic thought. . .

44 posted on 11/02/2005 3:26:04 PM PST by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Well I would phrase it as on "thin ice" myself. :) Even if SCOTUS has not ruled regarding the right or lack thereof of parents to restrict what a public school does with their kids during normal school hours, a sex questionaire seems beyond the mission of an educational institution, and thus the thin ice.


45 posted on 11/02/2005 3:27:05 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Whitewasher
My children will attend Government schools over my dead body.

That's probably too broad a brush. There are good public schools, as well as bad ones.

46 posted on 11/02/2005 3:28:48 PM PST by Palisades (Cthulhu in 2008! Why settle for the lesser evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Meyer v. Nebraska

Thankyou! That's the case of which I was thinking. I guess the question is will this be overturned next year 9-0, 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4?

47 posted on 11/02/2005 3:29:43 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Confirm Judge Alito now. Yes I am an Alitist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The district had dropped the survey in 2002 amid complaints from parents. The poll was given to children in the first, third and fifth grades.

I cannot imagine why any parent would have a problem with this. The school district said it was all for the children.

48 posted on 11/02/2005 3:30:07 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I cannot imagine why any parent would have a problem with this. The school district said it was all for the children.

Neither could the estimable Reinhardt, who writes very well, attended the right schools and has years of experience composing fantasy gleaned from emanations of penumbras.

49 posted on 11/02/2005 3:37:21 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select."

"Good morning, class. Today we will learn about the joys of alternate lifestyles. Meet Chip and Bruce, here to demonstrate for you how they express their love for each other..."

50 posted on 11/02/2005 3:39:37 PM PST by workerbee (A person's a person no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 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