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

Skip to comments.

Bloggers from both sides oppose FEC regulations (FEC Might Limit Web Free Speech)
Washington Times ^ | March 22, 2006 | Eric Pfeiffer

Posted on 03/22/2006 4:36:06 AM PST by PJ-Comix

Conservative and liberal bloggers both worry their freedom of speech is threatened by proposed campaign-finance rules that seek to regulate online political speech.

The Federal Election Commission is expected tomorrow to outline rules that could limit political Web logs and e-mail solicitations and would be similar to campaign-finance laws that apply to more traditional advocacy groups, such as the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association.

(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fec; johnmccain; russfeingold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
This is why John McCain MUST NEVER be nominated for President. He is the co-sponsor (with that LOON, Feingold) of the McCain-Feingold Campaign "Reform" Law, the WORST piece of legislation in years.
1 posted on 03/22/2006 4:36:07 AM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

McCain is nutz.


2 posted on 03/22/2006 4:41:49 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Jack Bauer: "By the time I'm finished with you you're going to wish you felt this good again".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I agree with you that CFR is a bad law. However no one has tried to change it, Why is that? Why havent feingold and McCain triesd to fine tune it. My belief is that many in Congress like it the way it is, They approve of having our Constitutional Rights Impaired.

Oh they make a big deal out of the Patriot Act for political purposes, but CFR is much worse than the patriot act for taking away Americans rights.


3 posted on 03/22/2006 4:42:24 AM PST by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

I hope that JimRob has a BACKUP server for the FR in the Bahamas or someplace else offshore.


4 posted on 03/22/2006 4:44:25 AM PST by PJ-Comix ((Join the DUmmie FUnnies PING List for the FUNNIEST Blog on the Web)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Very cynical take comparing McCain-Feingold with the PATRIOT Act, but you're DEAD ON. And ultimately President Bush is responsible for both.

I don't mind the PA, but McCain-Feingold is the single biggest leap of hypocrisy and assault on one of our basic freedoms ever foisted on us by other "Americans".

5 posted on 03/22/2006 4:57:41 AM PST by manwiththehands (Islam is as Islam does. Islam is as Islam allows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
...McCain-Feingold Campaign "Reform" Law, the WORST piece of legislation in years.

I'd say the Kelo decision is right up there. Worse, IMHO, though the two go rather well hand in hand...

FMCDH(BITS)

6 posted on 03/22/2006 5:18:13 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
This is why John McCain MUST NEVER be nominated for President. He is the co-sponsor (with that LOON, Feingold) of the McCain-Feingold Campaign "Reform" Law
. . . and when it was pointed out that McCain-Feingold hadn't contained campaign finance but just produced other loophole-seeking behavior and distortions in 2004, McCain had the nerve to assert that the law has to be strengthened!

McCain-Feingold is terrible law, because it explicitly gives journalists rights distinct from those of the people. The First Amendment does not allow that.

O'Connor was part of the 5-4 SCOTUS majority that OKed McCain-Feingold and, please God, that ruling will be overturned root and branch.


7 posted on 03/22/2006 5:41:27 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Jim Robinson; Spiff; M. Thatcher; Fledermaus; Congressman Billybob; ...

ping


8 posted on 03/23/2006 7:51:53 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

How do you regulate free speech?

McCain reminds me of the character Capt. Queeg in the movie and book "The Caine Mutiny". He appears to have a few screws loose.


9 posted on 03/23/2006 7:53:48 AM PST by Supernatural (Ea wull staun ma groon, Staun ma groon al nae be afraid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Kelo is not legislation ~ it's an obiter dicta by 9 robed and hooded bandits on the USSC. On the other hand, McCain/Feingold IS legislation.

A cynical person might suggest that the place is getting long overdue for some kind of revolution.

10 posted on 03/23/2006 7:55:59 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Supernatural

How I Work

John McCain
U.S. Senator (R-Arizona)

EXCERPT

You lose battles in politics. I do get good and angry. Really angry! By God, I'm not going to let them beat me again. I don't like to lose. After the 2000 race for the presidential nomination, I spent at least ten days -- and in many ways it was the most wonderful experience of my life -- wallowing in self-pity. It was really fun. Freeing.

Then I just woke up and said it was time to get over this. The people you represent don't want you this way. You're still their Senator. And besides, America doesn't like sore losers. I also don't hold grudges. It's a waste of time. What's the point? Frankly, the sweetest revenge is success.

http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/fortune/how_i_work/frameset.3.exclude.html


11 posted on 03/23/2006 7:57:06 AM PST by maggief (and the dessert cart rolls on ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Amen. If McCain is nominated in 2008 I will not be voting that year.

There are 2 things of mine that you don't mess with. One is my gun safe and the other is telling me what I can say and think.

Nominating Bloomberg, Pataki or Guiliani also would convince me to stay home rather than voting.


12 posted on 03/23/2006 8:00:35 AM PST by noobiangod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I really don't think McCain wants Internet speech shut down and I don't think there's a snowball in hell's chance of it happening.


13 posted on 03/23/2006 8:01:02 AM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands
Very cynical take comparing McCain-Feingold with the PATRIOT Act, but you're DEAD ON. And ultimately President Bush is responsible for both

Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

Congress actually is the one that proposes legislation and CFR lays in the lap of mccain.

But nice try at Bush bashing.

14 posted on 03/23/2006 8:01:10 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
The FEC was expected to publish its proposed Internet regulations yesterday on its Web site. However, the agenda item was listed as "submitted late." When The Washington Times contacted the FEC, it said the item is now scheduled to be posted this morning.
15 posted on 03/23/2006 8:01:59 AM PST by Mo1 ("Stupidity is also a gift from God, but it should not be abused." Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

It apparently wasn't so bad that it could draw out the Boy King's veto pen.


16 posted on 03/23/2006 8:02:09 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Supernatural

Does McLame still think he's Luke Skywalker?


17 posted on 03/23/2006 8:05:02 AM PST by RasterMaster ("Bin Laden shows others the road to Paradise, but never offers to go along for the ride." GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

BTTT


18 posted on 03/23/2006 8:09:00 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Clearly, McCain-Feingold violates the right of free speech under the Constitution. If The FEC rules that online commentary by indidviduals is to be suppressed during periods of electioneering, then Free Speech becomes an endangered right.

All of us need to speak out against this outrage!

19 posted on 03/23/2006 8:13:22 AM PST by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; Jim Robinson

So why did the House delay its vote on Hensarling's bill? Do we know if McCain had anything to do with that?


20 posted on 03/23/2006 8:15:00 AM PST by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

This is an outrage and to quote Bush 41, "this will not stand."


21 posted on 03/23/2006 8:15:52 AM PST by defenderSD ( Wishing, hoping, and praying that Saddam will not nuke us is not a national security policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
However no one has tried to change it, Why is that? Why havent feingold and McCain triesd to fine tune it.

Because one of the purposes of the law is to further restrict parties other than the Republicrats, preventing a breakup of the duopoly.

22 posted on 03/23/2006 8:16:55 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; PhilDragoo; potlatch; ntnychik; Interesting Times; Grampa Dave; Chieftain; Zacs Mom; ...

420x377

23 posted on 03/23/2006 8:17:14 AM PST by devolve ( Reload/Refresh this updated new Slick Willie graphic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief; RasterMaster

McCain isn't playing with a full deck.

He doesn't have both oars in the water.

He's about three bricks shy of a load.

And he got this horrible bill passed.

What does that say about our reps who voted for his bill?


24 posted on 03/23/2006 8:19:13 AM PST by Supernatural (Ea wull staun ma groon, Staun ma groon al nae be afraid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
It apparently wasn't so bad that it could draw out the Boy King's veto pen.

See reply #14, DUmmie.

25 posted on 03/23/2006 8:22:08 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: muawiyah
Kelo is not legislation ~ it's an obiter dicta by 9 robed and hooded bandits on the USSC.

I disagree. Kelo was a decision (not obiter dicta) by 9 robed and hooded bandits supporting laws and regulations made by thieves.

27 posted on 03/23/2006 8:24:18 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maggief
Then I just woke up and said it was time to get over this. The people you represent don't want you this way.

The people you supposedly "represent" here in AZ want you out of office!!

He will lose AZ in '08 if he runs for president.

We blew our chance in '04 to oust him, because no one who had half a name ran against him. We are cursed, like he's "our Kennedy."

Dear FReepers: On behalf of Arizona, WE'RE SORRY, USA!

28 posted on 03/23/2006 8:24:28 AM PST by kstewskis ("I don't know what I know, but I know that it's big".....Jerry Fletcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Supernatural
McCain reminds me of the character Capt. Queeg in the movie and book "The Caine Mutiny". He appears to have a few screws loose.

He's very tightly-wound: a classic megalomaniac.

29 posted on 03/23/2006 8:26:24 AM PST by Bernard Marx (Fools and fanatics are always certain of themselves, but the wise are full of doubts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Supernatural
Dang good observation.

I think all those years in prison may have muddled McCaniacs brain.

Lots of good men of sound mind and body have been thrown into prisons.

Some come out even better and some well become McCaniacs.
30 posted on 03/23/2006 8:28:31 AM PST by OKIEDOC (There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
If this goes through, look for them to outlaw soap-boxes in public areas and political lawn signs.

Thanks McCain, you treasonous bastard.

And no thanks to you, too, W. for not flushing this tyrannical BS the moment it left a smear on the President's desk.
31 posted on 03/23/2006 8:29:18 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"See reply #14, DUmmie."

You mean Democratic Underground? That's rich--I'd last about ten seconds over there.

I still don't see an explanation as to why the Boy King didn't honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and veto this monstrosity.


32 posted on 03/23/2006 8:31:36 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

He's definately a loose phaser..


33 posted on 03/23/2006 8:33:06 AM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Yawn.

Had Pres. Bush fought this and demanded that the base support killing this unconstitutional legislation, then maybe the noddle-spined Republicans could have made enough noise to get it killed.

Instead, all the noodle-spined Republicans fell into line behind McCain with their tails behind their legs.

Yawn.

And I am NO Bush-basher but one of his diehard supporters.

Yawn.

How can such a critical issue bore you?
34 posted on 03/23/2006 8:35:14 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

Yet by even a futile veto, Bush could have shown us he cares about free speech and full involvement of the people in the political process. As it is he stated support for it in general even during his 2000 election campaign. He would have signed it even if there was no threat of an override.

After signing, he stated several serious constitutional flaws in it that we now complain about. These flaws gave ample reasons for a veto, reasons that the people could have understood, yet he still signed it. He also stated that he would work with Congress to address these constitutional issues, but he has done nothing as far as I know.

Bush even promised to sign an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. You could say he did it because he knew an extension wouldn't pass, but saying he'd veto would have shown us he cares about our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, he chose to pander to the Brady bunch.

But nice try at Bush bashing.

People deserve to be bashed when they do bad things.

35 posted on 03/23/2006 8:37:24 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
I still don't see an explanation as to why the Boy King didn't honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and veto this monstrosity

Uh the "Boy King"(DUmmie term) knew that a veto of CFR would be overidden, but what the hey, be like the MSM(DUmmies) and blame everything on Bush, instaed of the person who pushed this monstrosity through, mccain.

36 posted on 03/23/2006 8:37:51 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

You bots kill me. A) Even if true, President Bush could have avoided complicity in passing a bill that he himself considered unconstitutional. B) It isn't true. The bill could have been defeated if the President had made an effort.

President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration.

37 posted on 03/23/2006 8:41:24 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Yet by even a futile veto, Bush could have shown us he cares about free speech and full involvement of the people in the political process. As it is he stated support for it in general even during his 2000 election campaign. He would have signed it even if there was no threat of an override.

Uh, President Bush stated what he would have liked to see in CFR bill. They were ignored by Congress, but also seeing the vote count on CFR he knew that his veto would be overidden, by Congress.

It's called strategery, and yet you ignore that strategery and not lay the impetus of CFR on mccain, whose child this monstrosity called CFR began.

But what the hey you DUmmie, gotta go by the old standby, blame Bush.

38 posted on 03/23/2006 8:43:19 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

wasn't it 6 bandits vs 3 good guys ?


39 posted on 03/23/2006 8:43:29 AM PST by stylin19a (Do you still have sex or are you already playing golf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
You bots kill me. A) Even if true, President Bush could have avoided complicity in passing a bill that he himself considered unconstitutional. B) It isn't true. The bill could have been defeated if the President had made an effort.

President Bush signed it expecting the courts to overturn the legislation. He gambled and we lost. It was the lowest point of his administration

LOL! You shadow DUmmies kill me.

40 posted on 03/23/2006 8:44:39 AM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All; Dane; manwiththehands
>>>>Yawn, CFR was going to pass by override of a veto anyway.

Wrong again.

The House vote was 240-189, Senate 60-40 to pass McCain Feingold, Roll Call Votes #34 ansd #54 respectively. You need 2/3rds vote in each house of Congress, 290 and 67 respectively, to override a Presidential veto.

41 posted on 03/23/2006 8:51:05 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Thanks for the ping A-B, please keep me on that list.


42 posted on 03/23/2006 8:51:19 AM PST by jazusamo (Excuse me Helen, I'm answering your first accusation. - President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Go back to sleep.


43 posted on 03/23/2006 8:51:41 AM PST by Supernatural (Ea wull staun ma groon, Staun ma groon al nae be afraid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; Jim Robinson

The FEC can do whatever the Hell they like, but they will find that unless they intend to restrict the Internet as does Communist China (hand in hand with Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.), political speech and blogs online cannot be regulated. As some posters have suggested, there will simply be a mass migration of bloggers to foreign servers where McPain-Foolsgold and the FEC cannot touch them.

As for the legal battle within the U.S.? Who do you think will be the most powerful ally for bloggers in putting the kabosh on the FEC and other government agencies?

Ironically, it will be the dying MSM, because as they seek to recover lost subscribers by increasing their online web presence, any restrictions on Internet-originated political speech will be tightening the noose even further around THEIR necks. For that reason alone, they will pour their not-inconsequential legal resources into this fight.

And if they do manage to somehow shut down or restrict the access of American citizens to Constitutionally protected free speech online?

We should remember the patriotic example set by a pre-Internet patriot, the late Reverend Dr. Carl McIntire, and his offshore broadcast operation, "Radio Free America":

http://www.carlmcintire.org/columbus.php

And McPain?

We'll shove the broadcast mast all the way up your traitorous ass until it tickles your tonsils.


44 posted on 03/23/2006 8:54:19 AM PST by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
wasn't it 6 bandits vs 3 good guys ?

Good correction, thanks.

45 posted on 03/23/2006 8:54:21 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
Thanks for the ping. I'm really trying to keep tabs on this issue.

A great many steps have been taken to usurp, restrict and infringe on the rights We The People have been endowed with by our Creator. Incrementalism is the tool of the Socialists.

But I think that this issue will be the biggest blow to our liberties as enumerated by the Bill of Rights. Like none other we have faced in the last century.
And it comes from our elected officials. This is digusting to me.
It brings to mind a Thomas Jefferson quote...something about the Tree of Liberty...if you catch my drift.

46 posted on 03/23/2006 8:59:17 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society's understanding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maggief
I also don't hold grudges.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

47 posted on 03/23/2006 9:07:04 AM PST by La Enchiladita (Walk softly, carry a big stick... and don't forget to connect the dots ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: zook

/sarc


48 posted on 03/23/2006 9:08:04 AM PST by La Enchiladita (Walk softly, carry a big stick... and don't forget to connect the dots ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 27, 2002

President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act
Statement by the President

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.

The bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways. First, it will prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contri-butions -- a legislative step for which I repeatedly have called.

Often, these groups take political action without the consent of their members or shareholders, so that the influence of these groups on elections does not necessarily comport with the actual views of the individuals who comprise these organizations. This prohibition will help to right that imbalance.

Second, this law will raise the decades-old limits on giving imposed on individuals who wish to support the candidate of their choice, thereby advancing my stated principle that election reform should strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process.

Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.

I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance.

These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.

Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.

This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.

But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 27, 2002.


49 posted on 03/23/2006 9:08:49 AM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

They can pry this keyboard from my cold dead hands.


50 posted on 03/23/2006 9:09:04 AM PST by sono ("If Congressional brains were cargo, there'd be nothing to unload." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 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