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

Skip to comments.

Leading Conservatives Call for Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Po
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59381 ^ | January 17, 2006 | Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances

Posted on 01/18/2006 8:10:29 AM PST by Perlstein

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-390 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
I don't know where they were, but I bitched (uselessly, as usual) about Echelon. I don't think Ms President Rodham will find the precedents unhelpful.

Of course, back in those days, anyone who said anything about Echelon was a "conspiracy kook". Only now that Bush has done the same thing has it become acceptable to talk about it, and only when using it to defend Bush.

101 posted on 01/18/2006 10:19:03 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

By the time you read it, it will be waaay down on the blog. Scroll down until you find it.


102 posted on 01/18/2006 10:21:53 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Okay. Tell me if I'm misstating anything:

You agree that, in order to tap the phones of US citizens who are NOT making or receiving calls to/from known terrorists and who do NOT have some "serious indicator that you belong to Al Qaeda" (your phrase), the US Government MUST obtain a warrant.

AND you agree that electronically monitoring, without a warrant, the phone calls of US citizens who do NOT fall within this category is ILLEGAL.

Is this correct?

103 posted on 01/18/2006 10:23:08 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

Leading Conservatives? More like fruitcake hasbeens.


104 posted on 01/18/2006 10:23:30 AM PST by Redleg Duke (Kennedy and Kerry, the two Commissars of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
How long does this 'time of war' last?

As long as there are Islamofascists with enough power and will to do another 9/11.

105 posted on 01/18/2006 10:24:04 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2
It doesn't matter whom he spoke with. Conservatism isn't defined by whom you make a joint speech with. It's defined by what it is you're advocating. If you can't go against him on that, then you have no point.

By the way, there were four other conservatives mentioned in the article: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Feel free to impeach their credentials.

106 posted on 01/18/2006 10:24:42 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Just another way of saying forever. Perpetual peace through perpetual war.


107 posted on 01/18/2006 10:32:21 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

Yep.

If they want to monitor your calls for other reasons, namely they think you might be a criminal, then a court order is necessary.

Only if it has to do with national security would I condone warrantless taps. And then only when they have a reasonable cause, as determined by the CIC's orders.


108 posted on 01/18/2006 10:41:32 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Perpetual peace through perpetual war.

That's pretty silly. Do you actually believe these people don't exist, and that we're in a pretend, manufactured war ala 1984? I want a real answer please.

109 posted on 01/18/2006 10:42:47 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Well, I thought you had it narrow, but now you've gone and broadened it up again.

"if it has to do with national security" is pretty broad. As is "reasonable cause as determined by the CIC's orders".

You may not be saying what I think you are saying, so I'm just going to ask:

If the Federal government wants to wiretap a US citizen who has not made phone calls to or from terrorists and does not have any "serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda", on the basis that the tap 'has to do with national security' based on reasonable cause determined solely by the President, are they required to seek and obtain a warrant?

I didn't think that was really what you are saying, because this would mean the government can tap anyone it wants to simply on the President's say-so, but I wanted to be sure.

110 posted on 01/18/2006 10:47:01 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

Arianna Barr... nuff said!

LLS


111 posted on 01/18/2006 10:48:24 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
1) I believe there will always be Muslims who want to harm the US. If the existence of these people is your standard for a state of war, then the state of war is permanent.

2) I believe that the existence of people who want to harm us does not equate to a state of war. Even people with the intent to harm us does not equate to a state of war. War requires an enemy. An enemy must be definable. And, by its very nature, the enemy must not only have the intent to harm us, it must have the capability to do so and make efforts to do so. Them hating us and wanting to kill us does not create a 'war.'

If we define war your way, there is no such thing as war. We have always been at war, and will always be at war.

112 posted on 01/18/2006 10:51:07 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I didn't think that was really what you are saying, because this would mean the government can tap anyone it wants to simply on the President's say-so, but I wanted to be sure.

'Simply on the President's say-so' would not meet the definition of 'national security.'

I've been reading a pretty good essay on the subject here.

113 posted on 01/18/2006 10:54:00 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
With the way I've seen some of the posts here, I am getting to the point of asking a few people when do we admit defeat and surrender to the Islamic Terrorist; So we can feel good about not violating evil people's rights


114 posted on 01/18/2006 10:58:24 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
by its very nature, the enemy must not only have the intent to harm us, it must have the capability to do so

Exactly as I said in my first post. Making your argument with me pointless. There is a definable enemy, and we are fighting it. As to how we end it, I wish I knew.....but sticking our heads up our rear ends like we did before 9/10 is no longer an option. It seems you want to go back to 9/10, and simply sweep them under the rug as before.

115 posted on 01/18/2006 11:00:42 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

LOL. I'm not sure we are as far apart on this as it seems.

Yes. To a point. I'll try to be clear. The President has the constitutional duty as commander and chief to protect this country from enemies both domestic and foreign. During wartime, it is not only acceptable, but required, that he make the determinations to fulfill that duty. And therefore, the president does have the authority to act on "reasonable" cause of threat to wiretap, have you followed or any other type of surveillance.

If the President decides that you buying a gun at Walmart or going to a eating at a Lebanese diner constitutes a reasonable "national security" threat, then he would need to be impeached, and fast.

The word Reasonable is not defined in the constitution. Neither are High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Therefore, it is up to the people and their elected representatives to determine if a president oversteps his authority. Some think he has already. I am not one.


116 posted on 01/18/2006 11:04:47 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
'Simply on the President's say-so' would not meet the definition of 'national security.'

If that decision is reviewable by no one, it effectively would.

117 posted on 01/18/2006 11:10:21 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: HHKrepublican_2

Bob Barr is an idiot.


118 posted on 01/18/2006 11:11:59 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
If that decision is reviewable by no one, it effectively would.

The check on Presidential power is always the Congress through the vehicle of impeachment. An abuse of Article II power would definitely be an impeachable offense.

119 posted on 01/18/2006 11:13:26 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
"There is a definable enemy"

Then please define it. All I've heard is that we are at war with a tactic. I guess that could be interpreted to mean that we are at war with those who most frequently use that tactic. Though I would think it would need to be used against us for us to be 'at war.'

Since I agreed to your request, please follow suit: be specific. 'Islamofascists' won't really cut it. Do you think we are 'at war' with Hamas? That'd be a strange opinion to hold, since we aren't doing anything to conduct that war. Are we 'at war' with Saudi Arabia? Are we 'at war' with Pakistan? Both of those nations are controlled by 'Islamofascists.' Tell me - who is the 'definable enemy'?

120 posted on 01/18/2006 11:15:19 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
So, unless a majority of an elected legislative body votes to remove the elected President, there is NO check on his authority?

A lot of folks around here need to revisit their Madison.

121 posted on 01/18/2006 11:17:19 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Actually, I meant to say was "the 'ultimate' check on Presidential power."

Please go read the case law. The SCOTUS has visited this issue numerous times-- these are Article II powers.

122 posted on 01/18/2006 11:20:09 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Okay. Then let me simply pose a hypothetical. One that will, I think, frame where we do disagree:

The NSA has a phone number of an American citizen. No calls have been placed to or from terrorists on that number. There is no 'serious indicator' that the owner of that number has anything to do with Al Qaeda. However, the number has come up in some type of electronic surveillance program - whether it be data mining or Echelon or whatever, and it has ended up on a list. Perhaps it was called by someone who called another number that is in a terrorist rolodex. Perhaps there is some other tangential connection that would be, in and of itself, evidence of absolutely nothing untoward on the part of the citizen. The government determines it wants to tap all numbers that have been 'captured' by the program in this way. The President says it 'has to do with national security' and orders it.

Is a warrant required? If they proceed to do so without a warrant, is it a violation of law?

123 posted on 01/18/2006 11:23:50 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

What are 'these'?


124 posted on 01/18/2006 11:24:25 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
At first the President did not name islamic terrorism as the enemy, and I believe the President did this at the time so as not to inflame the Islamic world and give help to al Queda. I think the tactic was briliant, and has given us time to help the Islamic world to not jump on the so called "strong horse" of Al Queda and slowly dismantle them, which we have been doing.

I have heard him say last year that we were at war with a small sect of radical Islam, he has said it many times.

Your claim that we are at war with a tactic is a bit specious, and you seem to really believe we are in 1984, making up our enemies just to keep us fearful.

I will ask you one more time, do you think these people (Islamic radicals) don't exist and aren't capable hurting us? If you don't reply to this, you aren't worthy of a reply back. It's the second time I've asked it.

*Looking at watch*

125 posted on 01/18/2006 11:26:24 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
I'll gladly carry on a discussion with you, but you can stick the smartass comments back in a drawer. That kind of juvenile crap is a waste of my time.

Specious to say we are at war on a tactic? 'War on terrorism'? 'War on terror'?

Do Islamic radicals exist who are capable of hurting us? Yes. Are we 'at war' with everyone who fits this description? Most decidedly not. In fact, we are 'allies' with many of them.

I repeat - the fact that someone hates us and is capable of hurting us does not mean we are 'at war' with them. And if you think that we will be 'at war' until there is no one who hates us who is capable of hurting us, then you think we have always been at war, and will always be.

126 posted on 01/18/2006 11:31:12 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Here's a good essay that explains the caselaw, SCOTUS decisions, etc.
127 posted on 01/18/2006 11:31:52 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: pissant
If you are not calling enemies or vice versa, then there is no justification for tapping your phone.....UNLESS your name and info appears in said terroist's rolodex or some other serious indicator that you belong to Al Quaeda.

By bypassing the existing oversight protocol, the administration has made it impossible to know whether this limit, or indeed any limit, is in fact observed.

That is why this nation was established with a President instead of a King.

128 posted on 01/18/2006 11:35:21 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: pissant
If the President decides that you buying a gun at Walmart or going to a eating at a Lebanese diner constitutes a reasonable "national security" threat, then he would need to be impeached, and fast.

If the existing protocols are circumvented by executive order, how is it to be discovered that he has done so?

129 posted on 01/18/2006 11:38:21 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You started the smart ass comments.....just giving them back.

So the war with Islamic radicalism is real, with real enemies?

I think you said yes.

Then you changed the subject to something.......

The President has defined our enemy, and it is not Pakistan, it is the Islamic radicals aligned with al Queda, you know, the group that brought down the twin towers, killing about 3000 US citizens.....you know....that group!

And yes, we better do what is necessary to kill and defeat these people, until they can no longer hurt us, we will have to be at war until we win, or they win. This ain't 1984 kid, it's actually a real war, against real, evil people that do very real, evil things.

130 posted on 01/18/2006 11:40:35 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Actually, Lakeshark, a specification of war is not neccessary to the Article II powers. The President has wide authority to act on matters of national security all the time.


131 posted on 01/18/2006 11:49:26 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
The President has defined our enemy

And there's the problem. The idea of giving Congress power to declare war means that Congress defines the enemy, not the President. Otherwise there isn't much point in giving Congress that power, is there?

132 posted on 01/18/2006 11:49:57 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Thank you, I do understand this, I was just referring to the other poster's question........and apparent 9/10 syndrome.


133 posted on 01/18/2006 11:53:21 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Pardon me....the congess did give him that power, right after 9/11. Get your facts straight, please.

No one has ever said the President can't define our enemy, is that somewhere I don't know about?

134 posted on 01/18/2006 11:55:44 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Okay, good. I was just trying to break some of the circular arguing we seem to be getting stuck in here. :-)


135 posted on 01/18/2006 11:56:07 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I am not for massive monitoring of people's numbers, its not only not "reasonable" but it is also a serious waste of resources that should be narrowly targeted.

So I would say that your scenario should lead those responsible for implementing the program to drop you off the watch list in short order. The reason you got on the list is important though. If it's tangental, as you say, then I would monitor your number to determine if you are continuing to be tangental to known terror #s or if you are only calling your aunt Edna. If you keep showing up in the loop, then you should tapped. If not, then dropped. Are there instances where the feds have monitored totally innocent people. Yes. Should they do everything they can to avoid that mistake, yes. Is it a crime for them to make that mistake. No.

A good example of that would be if we had been monitoring Atta (like we sure as hell should have been) and he had an american girlfriend. The Girlfriend is checked out and is clean as far as her known history goes. But knowing Atta was on a terror watch list, would I condone monitoring the GF's calls? Yes.

Does the occasional mistake make me change my mind and concur that warrants are needed? No


136 posted on 01/18/2006 11:57:57 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
No one has ever said the President can't define our enemy

That's what declaring war is. The fact that the power was given to Congress, and not given to the President, is enough of a hint for most people.

137 posted on 01/18/2006 11:59:17 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
I understand, I was just trying to help him slowly.......the arguments he was giving were theoretical at best......I was hoping to get him to comprehend this is not a made up war against a made up enemy.

:-)

138 posted on 01/18/2006 12:00:05 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Did you even read what I said?

*sigh*

I repeat: Congress gave him the power right after 9/11. You do know this don't you?

139 posted on 01/18/2006 12:02:16 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Does it say in the constitution that the only due process for search and siezure is via court warrant? As far as I'm concerned, the President has the constitutional right to implement this program, which is MUCH milder than what we have done in wars past. Several Supreme Court rulings have UPHELD this power.

Seems to me that the Prez allowed many members of Congress to review the program on a regular basis. There is your check. Are there no gov't programs that deserve to be hidden from public view?


140 posted on 01/18/2006 12:03:29 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
"it is not Pakistan, it is the Islamic radicals aligned with al Queda"

Why do you believe there is a distinction here?

141 posted on 01/18/2006 12:03:48 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Congress doesn't know it. Apparently, when they were directly asked to give this power and refused, they thought they were refusing to give this power.


142 posted on 01/18/2006 12:04:47 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

No, I didn't say 'yes' to the statement you made, I said 'yes' to the question you previously asked. Why do you know feel the need to morph it?


143 posted on 01/18/2006 12:05:58 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

The protocol was this. President determines who gets monitored based on national security threats. The Intelligence committees in the house and Senate are briefed every 90 days, and more if so requested. Do all 3 branches of gov't need to be involved in the CIC's decisions? Who has more authority during times of war regarding enemies and suspected enemies, the CIC or the courts?


144 posted on 01/18/2006 12:06:51 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Congress abdicated its power, and altered the balance of power that the Constitution set up. It'd be as if Congress passed, and the President signed, a law giving a committee of flag officers the power to review the orders the President gives as commander-in-chief. Would you consider that a constitutional piece of legislation, even if the President signed it (under heavy political pressure, say)?
145 posted on 01/18/2006 12:07:00 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
First, do you agree we have a real war with a real enemy? That's the question I'm addressing.

To change the subject to Pakistan would allow you to get away with more generalities about our "perpetual, made up war" you think we're in.

146 posted on 01/18/2006 12:08:12 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"So I would say that your scenario should lead those responsible for implementing the program to drop you off the watch list in short order. The reason you got on the list is important though. If it's tangental, as you say, then I would monitor your number to determine if you are continuing to be tangental to known terror #s or if you are only calling your aunt Edna."

Okay - just so I'm clear, you don't believe a warrant is necessary to monitor such people, right? So warrantless wiretapping is not only okay for 'those who call terrorists or are called by them' or for those with a 'serious indicator of belonging to Al Qaeda'? It is also okay for those US citizens who just happen to get caught up in some kind of data mining or other electronic surveillance activity, whether it be happenstance, or coincidence, or whatever?

If that's the case, fine - go forward from there. But in discussing this I wish folks would stop talking about wiretapping 'terrorists and those who call them,' because that is not ALL that is at issue here.

147 posted on 01/18/2006 12:09:42 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Look at it this way, the longer these people continue to screw up and then have to investigate themselves, the longer it is before they can screw us out of something. Mainly our hard earned money.

So...I say let em fight each other till the death.


148 posted on 01/18/2006 12:12:12 PM PST by unixfox (AMERICA - 20 Million ILLEGALS Can't Be Wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
You never shrink from trying to ascribe words to me that I haven't used, do you? Where did I say 'made up'? And you wholeheartedly endorse the 'perpetual' part.

I'll answer that question just as soon as you tell me who that enemy is. You already concede that we are NOT at war with all 'radical Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda,' which was your previous attempt at a definition.

Are we conducting military action against an enemy? Yes. Are we 'at war'? Not if we don't know who we are at war with, or where, or how we win. If we don't know these things, yet we use the 'at war' justification to adjust our domestic policies, we can consider them permanently adjusted.

149 posted on 01/18/2006 12:14:06 PM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Ah....so it's the fault of Congress......I should have known.

And we elected them too........

Dang.

150 posted on 01/18/2006 12:14:17 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-390 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