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: Perlstein

Useful idiots.


51 posted on 01/18/2006 8:59:15 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

The key word in the Constitution is "Unreasonable Searches".

Such protections were never intended for enemy combatants or their agents operating in the US.


52 posted on 01/18/2006 8:59:36 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees have decided to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein
However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores.

My understanding is that the electronic surveillance was initiated on suspected terrorists on foreign shores. Any 'listening in' on conversations with Americans was incidental - meaning the suspected terrorist on foreign shores called the American.

53 posted on 01/18/2006 9:00:02 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
I hope that you "well understand" that if these terrorists are not caught that you and we will suffer even more 9/11s."""

I know that there are all kinds of threats out there -- and always have been, but that doesn't mean we get rid of the constitution. It would be neater, cleaner, and in a sense, safer, to let police go after all criminals without any constitutional restraint. That was true when the Constitution was written, too. But the Founders wanted this to be free country, not a police state.

If Hillary becomes president, I somehow suspect you won't be as enthusiastic for allowing government spying on people in the US without court permission. I certainly won't be enthusiastic about letting Hillary's goons do that -- but unlike you, I'm consistent. I don't want precedents created now - when our guys are in power - that could be used to undermine freedoms if Hillary gets in. That's what constitutionalism - and conservatism - are all about. A belief in the rule of law, no matter what party is in power. Marxism, on the other hand, believes - as some freepers seem to - that there should be no restraint on government, when "our guys" run the government.

54 posted on 01/18/2006 9:01:00 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

What flaws? Of course the Patriot Act supporters know that Ms President Rodham will enjoy the use of precedent.


55 posted on 01/18/2006 9:02:14 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Peach
For answers to questions about Grover Norquist, read the book Infiltration.

Or click on one or more of the below ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467268/posts
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17681

56 posted on 01/18/2006 9:03:19 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Conservatism used to be about putting limits on government's power.

Do you think that government should be required to get a warrant to wiretap the phones of suspected terrorists on foreign soil? (Not American citizens.)

57 posted on 01/18/2006 9:03:23 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

What maroons.


58 posted on 01/18/2006 9:03:48 AM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (How long do we have to pretend that most Democrats are patriots?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Do you think that government should be required to get a warrant to wiretap the phones of suspected terrorists on foreign soil? """

That's not what is at issue. It's wiretaps on calls to or from the US. And the law is pretty loose - it lets the wiretaps happen first, and the investigators can get court approval retroactively. But the administration, reportedly, hasn't even done that in some cases. Yes, it worries me, because I could see myself wiretapped by Hillary's people if she gets power (the way Bill's IRS went after conservatives). And when I complained, Hillary would say, there's precedent for wiretapping domestically without warrant - - and FREEPERS ARE FOR IT!

59 posted on 01/18/2006 9:05:51 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Hillary will do this stuff anyway. It's not the present NSA intercepts you have to fear, they were checked and vetted even through the opposition, and no one balked at the program.

Like stated earlier, we don't need to commit suicide to keep our rights.

Hillary et al are corrupt, and they will do anything (and already have) to maintain their power base. She and her ilk are the dangerous ones. Gore and these so-called conservatives are way off base.

60 posted on 01/18/2006 9:06:30 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Wiretaps in the case of military intelligence monitoring the communications of foreign persons outside the country engaged in actions against the United States? I don't have any problem with ceding that power to the Presidential office, and as has been argued, that power is inherent under Article II.

The term 'wiretap,' being completely innaccurate in this instance, has muddied the waters of the debate. No one can make the case that the NSA has selected specific American citizens, decided to monitor their communications, and sent out someone to attach a listening or recording device to their phone lines, and had an operative sitting in some dank basement with a set of headphones like in the old movies. No American citizen is targeted (selected, etc.) in this.

Any persons in this country, should they be ensnared in this system, are secondary, as one side of a conversation. They are not being monitored, but the party they are speaking to is, and is being monitored not in the interest of criminality (which would be covered by the Fourth Amendment), but in the interest of military intelligence (inherent under Article II).

The control for this activity is still provided for under the Constitution-- through impeachment. Should the Executive abuse this power for political or other purposes not pertinent to military intelligence, they can be impeached and tried by Congress.

61 posted on 01/18/2006 9:07:01 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
First of all before I accept your premise I must assume that the folks at the NSA don't follow the law. Guess what, they do follow the law and are Patriots.

How do I know, I used to work there and wouldn't mind working there again. You know how these persons being monitored where identified...They called a known terrorist in another country! Well golly gee! they might be bad guys on our soil. We are dealing with people here who don't follow the Geneva conventions.

As for monitoring Americans, the NSA do not have the resources and the manpower to do that. I get a kick out of reports making the NSA bigger then it really is. Also it is illegal to monitor law abiding Americans and the Employees at NSA are more like you then you think. They are just everyday people protecting this country to the best of their ability.

Having worked there and knowing people at the NSA I find it offensive when anyone suggest they are spending their time spying on Americans..It's a blatant waste of their time and your tax dollars. They are too busy watching the bad guys so they won't harm us to waste their time listening to your phone call.


62 posted on 01/18/2006 9:07:08 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Do you not agree that our country's being in a WAR constitutes "probable cause" to spy on those suspected terrorists or their allies...including American's who are in contact w/them?


63 posted on 01/18/2006 9:08:17 AM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Hillary will do this stuff anyway."""

But if she does it without precedent, she could be impeached. What you're allowing is precedent to be created that will allow her to do it with impunity. I believe in the rule of law. That's why I'm a conservative. Liberals don't believe in the rule of law - - they ignore the law, and checks and balances, when it gets in the way. Astonishing that we have so many people with a liberal mindset, on FR

64 posted on 01/18/2006 9:08:38 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I am very skeptical of warrantless wiretaps of US citizens for any reason. Of course we should be listening to terrorist conversations, but get a warrant first.


65 posted on 01/18/2006 9:10:09 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Hillary did this stuff already and they weren't impeached for it. I'm afraid you didn't read what I said.


66 posted on 01/18/2006 9:10:12 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

"So you are okay with warrantless wiretaps?

I'm not."

Not only am I OK with the surveilance, I'd be outraged if we weren't doing them. We've been doing this for years {pre-dates Bush}. Don't be naive about what the NSA is doing and has done for decades. It's become a big deal because GWB is doing it.


67 posted on 01/18/2006 9:10:57 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I resent your assumption that Hillary Clinton will ever be voted President.
68 posted on 01/18/2006 9:11:24 AM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I'm a conservative because I believe in constitutional restraints, no matter which party is in power.

Well put, I agree 100%

69 posted on 01/18/2006 9:11:41 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Sorry but Grover Norquist is NO conservative, he is a damn communist bought and paid for by CAIR and the rest of the muslims.


70 posted on 01/18/2006 9:11:56 AM PST by newcthem (9/11- not terrorists - just troubled youths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
Actually, everyone should realize that this is a press release. In other words, the people and group named in this article wrote it and released it.

Why should we realize that this newswire is basically pay for play? It's too much fun just to be reactionary and blame the MSN without thinking about the source.

C'mon, you're spoiling our fun with facts.

71 posted on 01/18/2006 9:12:29 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
You should be well-aware that no one has to "wait" to get a warrant. FISA allows the Feds to tap and seek a warrant within 72 hours. Any 'immediate' need for a tap is already covered.

So your point fails completely.

We do not invest any public official with the authority to simply do whatever they think is right. We are a government of laws, not of men. Those here who so slavishly worship the President and think that whatever he does must be okay need to pause and think about giving those same powers to a very different President.

72 posted on 01/18/2006 9:12:47 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

Bob Barr? Bwahaha!


73 posted on 01/18/2006 9:13:04 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
I resent your assumption that Hillary Clinton will ever be voted President."""

So you don't think there will ever be another Democratic president? That's pretty unrealistic. Whether it's Hillary or Obama or Bayh - - whoever it is - there will someday be a Democrat president, and I don't want him/her spying on Americans, in America, without judicial permission. You really ought to read up on the importance of the rule of law.

74 posted on 01/18/2006 9:14:33 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Of course we should be monitoring terrorists overseas and here. When it comes to US citizens, get a warrant.


75 posted on 01/18/2006 9:17:38 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Letter from Asst. Atty. Gen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts


76 posted on 01/18/2006 9:18:22 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on. Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

good for Barr. It takes courage to stand up for constitutional principles when doing so is guaranteed to get you hooted at. a lot of his critics were cheering him when he was blasting Bill Clinton for violating constitutional principles. and if Hillary becomes president, you can bet she'll try to violated the constitution - and I doubt that Freepers will say nasty things about Barr when he protests against Hillary's illegalities.


77 posted on 01/18/2006 9:18:59 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

I can't even IMAGINE that Washington and the Continental Congress would not intercept British communications this way.

Or Lincoln intercepting Confederate telegraphs.

Or Wilson and FDR not monitoring phone calls to Germany.

It's no different now. If I call Zarquawi or he calls me, there is no reason the CIC needs to get permission to listen in.


78 posted on 01/18/2006 9:19:42 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

I have. I hope any president...dem or rep...IN A TIME OF WAR...will do the same.


79 posted on 01/18/2006 9:19:46 AM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: pissant
but....but....

You'd be infringing on his civil liberties....

/sarcasm

80 posted on 01/18/2006 9:20:45 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein
From Drudge;

SOFT SALES FOR BOOK FROM NYT REPORTER WHO BROKE NSA/ EAVESDROPPING : ONLY 20,915 COPIES OF JAMES RISEN 'STATE OF WAR' HAVE SOLD SINCE MUCH BALLYHOOED RELEASE...

Yeah, 20,915 books were mostly likely purchased by the terrorists themselves! Nail the SOB'S *ss to the wall!!

81 posted on 01/18/2006 9:22:00 AM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

Saddam did what you favor - wiretapped people in his own country without court permission. We can fight terrorists and still comply with FISA, and the constitution. FISA allows retroactive judicial approval. If Bush won't even seek that kind of permission, he's endangering our freedoms by creating dangerous precedents. It's sad that there are a lot of freepers, such as you, who care so little about the rule of law.


82 posted on 01/18/2006 9:22:22 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
Bob does get that the DEMS paid him back for impeachment

Bob Barr moved to Linder's district and ran agaist him best I remember.
It was not the Dems that lost the election for him.

83 posted on 01/18/2006 9:22:23 AM PST by carenot (Proud member of The Flying Skillet Brigade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
C'mon, you're spoiling our fun with facts.

Whoops. Sorry. Never mind.

84 posted on 01/18/2006 9:23:41 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If Barr were complaining about Hillary snooping without judicial permission...

But Barr won't be complaining when or if it happens anymore than the NY Times will be upset about past or future Clinton spying on their enemies, i.e., conservatives, right wingers, political enemies as defined by the Clintons, meaning any Republican, because Barr will not be drawing a paycheck anymore if he does. It's real simple even if many of you are unable to grasp the facts - the Clintons were doing this before the Patriot Act, before Bush was elected, and they will do it again if given the chance and to hell with the constitution or any law passed or not passed by congress because NONE OF IT APPLIES TO DEMOCRATS or in those immortal words of Al Gore, "There is no controlling legal authority."

85 posted on 01/18/2006 9:24:51 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

apples and oranges


86 posted on 01/18/2006 9:27:31 AM PST by Carolinamom (New member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
That's not what is at issue.

That is most definitely what is at issue. The calls originated from foreign shores and were placed by suspected (or known) terrorist. The only U.S. citizens whose calls were listened in on were individuals who were called by the terrorists.

"It's wiretaps on calls to or from the US."

That's news to me. Do you have a reliable source on that?

Please don't even bother pointing me to some article from the MSM or some wildly libertine website. I'd like a truly reliable source. Thanks.

87 posted on 01/18/2006 9:28:57 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
You might want to read the fourth post down on Hugh Hewitt's blog today before you call it lawless:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

Read all the links, then comment.

88 posted on 01/18/2006 9:32:28 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter; All

Posted by Justanobody to henry_thefirst
On News/Activism 01/09/2006 3:08:11 PM PST · 48 of 55


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-21-bush-spying-edit-yes_x.htm
In addition to constitutional authority, Congress has authorized the use of force in the Joint Resolution of Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11. That resolution charged the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." These wiretaps follow logically from this resolution.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703
...Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough.
But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts
ASST. ATTY. GEN'S. LETTER TO SENATE INTEL. COMM. -
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html
With the invention of the microphone, the telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to ''eavesdrop'' with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires ...


89 posted on 01/18/2006 9:34:16 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on. Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Okay, I'm tired of that meme. It is nothing but misdirection. So let's talk about what is really the issue.

Starting with this: What if I don't? What if I don't call Zarqawi - or any other known terrorist - and they don't call me? Do you believe a warrant is required to tap my phone?

If not, what allows my phone to be tapped without a warrant?

Is it ILLEGAL to tap the phones of US citizens who are NOT making calls to or receiving calls from known terrorists without first obtaining a warrant?

90 posted on 01/18/2006 9:41:16 AM PST by lugsoul ("Try not to be sad." - Laura Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
According to Overwhelming FR majority, afore-mentioned are ALL TRAITORS and TERRORIST ENABLERS.

They are, as are you.

You may need a new keyboard. Your CAPS LOCK key may be broken.


This is a ch__ch. What's missing?

91 posted on 01/18/2006 9:51:45 AM PST by rdb3 (What it is is what it was.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein

So these people have joined forces with the likes of the spawn of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.


92 posted on 01/18/2006 9:56:52 AM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Thanks. I'll have to read it later. Have work to do this morning.


93 posted on 01/18/2006 9:59:40 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
"So you are okay with warrant less wiretaps? I'm not"

Nor am I.

And I’m pretty astounded by the number of conservatives who are willing to surrender unlimited power to whoever happens to sit in the oval office for the duration of a possibly endless war (can you imagine a time when there is no one who wishes the US harm?)

My wife's desk is in the Sears Tower - now the tallest building in the country, and presumably short listed by possible terrorists – so I’ve though about this a lot. And my conclusion that in terms of what really matters long term ultimately she's safer there – at least as long as this is a country where there are judicial checks on the legal powers of the executive branch - than in a country where the Maximum Leader makes whatever rules she or she prefers as tribal War-Lord.

At the moment, it’s often hard to get this point across – some people are willing go to just about any length to avoid facing the question of possible abuse of such power.

But IMO when you see people such as Paul Weyrich being derided as liberal lap-dogs, you know the argument is off the rails - the problem with this sort of approach is that you have dismiss the opinions of ever larger numbers of thoughtful conservative commentators; if they are elected they are RINOs, if unelected, “who do they represent?”, if current members of government they are said to be “disloyal”, if they have left government service they are attacked as “traitors”, and so on.

Still, at the moment I’m in the minority, and can only hope that a majority of voters come to their senses before such power is vested in someone really inimical to our traditional freedoms.

94 posted on 01/18/2006 10:01:08 AM PST by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody
Letter from Asst. Atty. Gen. ...

That is truly outstanding, thanks!
95 posted on 01/18/2006 10:01:44 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: M. Dodge Thomas

Thanks, I agree 100%


96 posted on 01/18/2006 10:09:24 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

a) 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.

The bottom line is this. If the feds know the numbers of the terrorists, then they should be able to mine the incoming and outgoing calls from that #. And if you or I are calling or recieving from that #, I believe it is neither unjust nor unreasonable for the feds to monitor those calls. Just because typical domestic surveillance requires a court order, does not mean that atypical wartime overseas communications fall under court purvue.

The CIC has lotsa constitutional power to conduct war as he deems necessary. It has been that way since the founding of the Republic.


97 posted on 01/18/2006 10:11:33 AM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Perlstein
Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

And what will the dems do if it turns out this stuff was started under Clinton? And with much less provocation?

98 posted on 01/18/2006 10:13:15 AM PST by GOPJ (A) Cub reporters acting as stenographers for a manipulative top FBI agent? Q) What is Watergate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

How long does this 'time of war' last?


99 posted on 01/18/2006 10:17:21 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Bob Barr just spoke with Gore against this. "Conservative" yeah right!


100 posted on 01/18/2006 10:18:35 AM PST by HHKrepublican_2 (OP Spread the Truth....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1535158/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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