Ten Commandments stunner: Ten Commandments stunner: Feds lying at Supreme Court

FAITH UNDER FIRE
Ten Commandments stunner:
Feds lying at Supreme Court
Government tells modern visitors
it's Bill of Rights being honored

Every argument before the U.S. Supreme Court and every opinion the judges deliver comes in the presence of the Ten Commandments, God's law given to Moses on a fire-scorched mountain, and now represented for the United States in the very artwork embedded in the high court structure.

In today's world of revisionist history, the proof comes through the work of a California pastor who visited the Supreme Court building recently when he was in Washington and was surprised that what the tour guides were telling him wasn't the same thing as what he was seeing.

Todd DuBord, pastor of the Lake Almanor Community Church in California, said he was traveling with his wife, Tracy, and was more than startled during recent visits to the courthouse and two other historic locations to discover that the stories of the nation's heritage had been sterilized of Christian references.

His entire research compilation is available online.

"Having done some research (before the trip), I absolutely was not expecting to hear those remarks," which, he told WND, simply "denied history."

So he's written to the Supreme Court, and several other groups, asking them to restore the historic Christian influences to their information, and he's documented his research to explain to those interested what the history is and how it's been subverted.

"I would like to see the record rectified and the proper Christian and Judeo-Christian depictions taught in these places," he told WND.

He was most disturbed by what appears to be revisionism in the presentations given to visitors at the Supreme Court. There, he said, his tour guide was describing the marble frieze directly above the justices' bench.

"Between the images of the people depicting the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government, there is a tablet with ten Roman numerals, the first five down the left side and the last five down the right. This tablet represents the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights," she said.

The ten what? was DuBord's thought.

Unwilling to be confrontational, he went home and started some research.

One official Supreme Court document, he found, cited a letter from sculptor Adolph A. Weinman that said the "pylon" carved with Roman numerals I to X "symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution." But the letter was anomalous; it didn't have a number of certifying marks that were typical of others.

So he continued looking and after calling in some assistance in his hunt for evidence, he found a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court Handbook, prepared under the direction of Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said, "Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten Commandments…"

Further research produced information that in 1987 the building was designated a National Historic Landmark, and came under control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and under the new management the handbook was rewritten in 1988. The Ten Commandments reference was left out of that edition, and nothing replaced it.

The next reference found said only the frieze "symbolizes early written laws" and then in 1999, the reference first appeared to that depiction being the "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights."

"The more I got into it (his research), the more I saw Christianity had been abandoned from history," he told WND.

When he asked, his recent tour guide denied there were any Ten Commandments representations in the Supreme Court building, he said.

One who was not surprised by the circumstances, however, was Judge Roy Moore, a WND columnist and the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He was removed from office on a federal judge's order because he refused to remove a depiction of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama courthouse.

"They've distorted history to come up with their own version of things," he told WND. What such changes do, he said, "is divorce ourselves from an understanding of where our rights come from."

Without rights coming from God, he noted, government "assumes control over everything, including what you think."

"Why would they say the Ten Commandments weren't there? They had to come up with something. I could see the progressive disappearance of the word 'commandment' from their literature," said DuBord.

He had just returned from a trip to Turkey, where ancient Ephesus is.

"The tour guide was Muslim, and went on to say, with all respect to all of you, I need to say something to you about the Apostle Paul. ... And he went into an apologetic of Paul's teachings."

"He told us, 'These things happened here,'" DuBord said.

But then to return to the U.S. and find Christianity edited from history left him almost speechless.

"I thought, we started as a Christian nation, and we can't even get this here."

DeBord also noted that during his research of the "Weinman letter," he found another memorial in Washington, "The Oscar Solomon Memorial," noting the accomplishments of the first Jew to serve in a president's cabinet. It's on 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues.

It also was designed by Weinman, and like the Supreme Court image, depicts a human figure leaning on the same table with Roman numerals just as the East Wall Frieze.

But this time, an artist's letter confirms the tablets represent the Ten Commandments.

"Would Weinman have sculpted two identical tablets, in the same city, each with the Roman numerals I through V on one side and VI through X on the other, but with totally different identities?" DuBord wondered. "It seems very unlikely."

The current information office at the Supreme Court declined to talk on the record with WND when asked about Ten Commandments representations on the building, referring questioners to the website.

There, a document does indicate "Moses" is one of various lawgivers portrayed in the friezes, but the site doesn't mention "Ten Commandments." It does mention the "Ten Amendments."

DuBord said he knew of other representations, such as the lower part of the inside of each of the oak doors where people enter the inner Court Chamber, where two tablets carry Roman numerals I-V and VI-X.

But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.

He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"

"Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. 'There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court,'" DuBord said he was told.

He asked if there were any pictures of the representation, and she pulled one out.

"Her eyes widened in surprise. There was Moses in photo and description as the central figure, holding the Ten Commandments (tablets), one in each hand," DuBord wrote.

Although there are six depictions of Moses and-or the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court, the tour guides had been trained to admit to only the one on Moses, he said.

One doesn't have to be Christian, or endorse Christianity, to recognize its influence in history, he said.

"I am … respectfully requesting that the complete educational history regarding the depictions of Moses and The Ten Commandments be rediscovered and retaught to U.S. Supreme Court guides and to the public in the U.S. Supreme Court Building," he suggested in a letter to the court.

DuBord grew up without religion, but during seven years of academic study at Bethany University and Fuller Theological Seminary accepted that the claims of Christianity are true.

He's served in various prison, drug and alcohol rehab ministries and worked as a youth pastor and associate pastor before assuming his duties in Lake Almanor.

His messages can be downloaded at www.iTunes.com, by typing in "almanor" or "dubord."

Link to DuBord's article. aka "Unruh article."

Correction: DuBord's article is just DuBord's article, period; it's not aka "Unruh article". Note that the World Net Daily article was written by Bob Unruh. Bob Unruh's WND article is *about* DuBord's article (which of course is why Unruh's article links to DuBord's article). But when I talked about Unruh or his article, I was talking only about the WND article by Bob Unruh--the WND article is the crap article and Unruh is the crap author I was talking about. Hope that clarifies things.

You flatly said that the author's "conspiracy theory" ('report' to normal people) was about the East Frieze and not Moses' tablets. That is flatly and clearly wrong.

People who don't understand what I'm talking about might assume I meant "report". But I said "conspiracy theory" because that's exactly what I meant. The "report" would be either DuBord's entire article or Unruh's entire article. The "conspiracy theory", which is what the first third to half of both Unruh's and DuBord's articles are all about, concerns only the East Wall Frieze. That's the frieze DuBord went off to investigate after the tour. Remember DuBord's trip to the 14th St. Oscar Solomon Straus memorial? And remember his investigation into the various rewrites of the U.S. Supreme Court Handbook? He's got pictures of various rewrites with sections highlighted, etc. That's all supposed to be evidence of his claim that the letter from Adolph Weinman, the East Wall Frieze's sculptor, is a forgery. Remember? *That's* the conspiracy theory I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the entire report; if I was talking about a report as a whole, I would have said "report".

Now, to finish this, let me remind you of your comment to which I initially replied. You said:

if all the figures in the SC friezes are equal in import why are the rest still recognized for what they are yet Moses has been reduced to a non-entities and his tablets have been morphed into the Bill of Rights?

And what I'm saying--*all* I wanted to say before all these countless tangents--is that there's nobody at the Supreme Court--either in real life or in either Unruh's article or DuBord's article--pointing to Moses holding the Ten Commandments on some frieze and claiming "That's not Moses" or "That's not the Ten Commandments in his hands." That's what your comment appeared to be claiming (similar to the other comments I mentioned in my prior reply), and that's what I was replying to.

And btw, when people talk about the Supreme Court friezes, they don't normally mean the East Pediment. The "friezes" are generally understood as being inside the building. There's no reason whatsoever for me to have assumed you were including the East Pediment in your comment about "the SC friezes". (Recall how in reply 70, after I had said, "Moses is not on the East Frieze at all", you dragged out the East Pediment as if it somehow refuted my comment. At that point it became clear that you had been confusing the East Wall Frieze with the East Pediment. In reply, I said, "If you're under the impression that the tour guide was claiming that's not Moses or that's not the Ten Commandments on the East Pediment, you're way wrong. The East Pediment wasn't part of the tour and wasn't even discussed by the tour guide." That right there should have been the end of our discussion.) Also btw, the SC tour guides don't normally take tourists outside the back of the building, so there's really no reason to expect that tour guide would have known who's on the East Pediment anyway. She's just a government employee after all.

Anyway, the triviality of this discussion is not worth the time consumption. The more I write, the more you misunderstand. I'm done. You can have the last word.

I completely understand the inclination to "What's good for the goose/gander." However, that often quickly degenerates into a "perceived slight for a perceived slight" mentality which, in the end, usually loses the majority of the population who see it as petty squabbling. We have too much to lose to behave that way.

I also believe strongly that the historical impact/influence of Judeo Christian principles in the founding of this Republic should be maintained. Too often, however, Judeo Christian principles become mushed in with "Christianity" to suggest we were founded by Christians. We were certainly SETTLED by Christians escaping persecution. However, the truth is that persecution was by other Christians, and in the end the country itself was founded on the principles, rather than adherence to a specific religious order. That distinction seems to get blurred by both the left AND the right and is often the basis for most of these arguments.

My suggestion would be to continue to publish books and textbooks, make films, provide lectures, etc. that contain scholarly information on the subject and attack the misinformation it in that way, rather than futz around with it from a tour guide. (Besides, half the time these tour guides are full of it...one told my mom that George Washington was really short during a Mt. Vernon tour! Ha!) There are many fine historians and authors who work on this regularly and work to steer real history in the right direction.

In this case, it is not the concept that I oppose, but rather the way in which the battle is being waged. We need to fight the larger battle, rather than waste our energy in a loosely collected series of skirmishes.

As far as me being a troll or not a Christian as I said...well, I can't counter that, so you are certainly entitled to draw whatever conclusions you wish. My intent, although badly executed, was to say that I am not opposed to Christianity because I am one, but I am opposed to the way we sometimes start to see conspiracy everywhere and thrash at every little thing as if it were the last word.

Thought you might enjoy this.

A Frightening Analysis

We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"

"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: First to destroy America, "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."

Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, "We could make the United States a 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'"

Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

"E. Pluribus Unum" — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'x! xenophobes' halt discussion and debate."

"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Your answers are thoughtful and cogent .. my only hope is my reply is of sufficient quality to merit your effort.

Sadly the fight is on. Like it or not...

One of the things that impresses me about Certain Orthodox Jews is their ability and willingness to mix faith and the fight..

They do not shirk from Combat only they fight the Spiritual fight while physically at the front exposing themselves to hazard.. Praying fervently for their Warriors Victory...

Christians in the US would do well to follow that example.

We are in a fight against many foes... Those than cannot fight… .. pray..

But restrain yourself from discouraging the hearts of your Defenders.

Do not be lured into the false teaching that all defense of Christendom is to be Spiritual only.

"To turn the other cheek" is a personal teaching of Christ a calling to forgive ones brothers 70 times 7. To have Christian Love and forbearance even for ones enemies on a personal level.

It is not a sound nor a Christ based doctrinal foundation for the management and protection of the flock. If from time to time one Christian is called upon to sacrifice themselves of their own free will in the furtherance or fulfillment of that aspect of Christ's teaching it a matter for Honor.

It was Christ however that gave his life for the salvation of his flock. Are we to throw them to the wolves as our Christian obligation to him? Where did we gain such a right and authority?

What a perversion of his teaching.

The point here is: We as a people have the Duty not to confuse personal acts of sacrifice with the sacrifice or endangerment of the flock.

If you agree, then you recognize the difference between personal risk and risking the body of Christ.

If Christ’s admonitions are to be respected.

That one would be better served to place a stone around their neck and cast themselves into the sea neck than harm one of the little one that believe in him.

If his teachings are to be believed.

That to enter the Kingdom of Heaven one must become “like those little children”

If you find truth in the proceeding words.

Then one needs to reassess if their position is limited to “Turning the other Cheek” when confronted by evil.

Was not one of the last teachings of Christ and instruction to take our purse or sell our coat and obtain a sword?

The second part in garden where he tells Peter to put away thy sword (The sword he instructed Peter to obtain and carry.)

His teaching “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” obviously was not directed at Peter the Fisherman who he armed.. nor at legitimate Soldiers whom he admonished to do violence to no man, to be content with their wages and not falsely accuse. Nor at Christians in general for whom he sacrificed his own life.

His admonition was directed at the people who came to seize him.. Who made a living by the illegitimate exercise of force.)

Best put by Saint Bernard..
I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity.2 http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_perspective/justwar.htm#fn2

Golly Gee..

Do you think perhaps Christ will be more than just a little disappointed if we allow evil to reign unopposed?.. Allow Christs flock to be forced at the end of a Writ or a Sword to repudiate the doctrines of Christian Faith and the Teachings of Christ?

I am certain of it.

Then the only reasonable interpretation is that we as Christian adults are charged with defending his flock defending each other.

If someone throws crap on a picture of “The Virgin Mary’ They are throwing crap on all Catholics actually all Christians. If a bunch of Islamofacist Nut Jobs use venerated Christian writings and relics inside the Greek Orthodox church in Bethlehem as toilet paper they are doing the same to all Greek Orthodox again actually to all Christians who are attempting in good faith to follow the teaching of Christ.

When Islamofacist nut jobs slice the heads off of two little girls in the Phillipeans who were walking, Bibles in hand on their way to church, Murder 160 Christian Children while they are at school in Beslyn Russia. It is time long time past for Christian Adults to say enough, mean it and act on it.

Now I do not think (Just my interpretation of his teachings) Christ wants us to murder people for defacing Christian Icons, writing or relics. As unlike our enemies his power is not manifest nor his truths dependent upon the existence or submission to worldly objects.

However, at that point where they attempt to box us into a political corner, to marginalize and trivialize the actual relationships between the foundations of the Christian Nation of the United States it’s Courts, Laws and Legal traditions.

It is fight time...

an issue like this is a political fight… Like what you see here.

However keep in mind murdering, raping and committing general acts of mayhem against the West and Christendom did not begin in a vacuum. There was an evaluation that the West and our Judeo Christian ethical underpinning were ripe for the picking (wrong).

Nonetheless such violent assaults require an active and forceful response…

Issues like this trivial one have encouraged those who would ultimately kill our children and slaughter the flock. They must by lawful political and social means be stopped. Those who are non-violent must be defeated in the political sphere

Those who are violent… must be defeated by the Sword.
A sword placed into our hand by our Master Jesus to be used lawfully in defense of his flock, his children.

Keep in mind Christians and Jews find few things justify violence, only the right to self defense or the defense of their community.

Our enemies find few things that restrain violence. Violence practiced either by them directly or by proxy. Today like then, again unlawfully using the same Mantle of Authority which was used to justify the Crucifixion of Christ.

One note of encouragement... That effort did not work out as planned by the wrongdoers did it?

Neither will the evil things you are witnessing today.

But most assuredly we must fight.

I am open to being educated in the flaws of my thinking..

Wm

Thank YOU for the thoughtful reply. Too often these things degenerate really fast! :-)

First, I completely agree with you regarding the misunderstanding (especially regarding war and peace) of the entire concept of "turning the other cheek" as well as that of "an eye for an eye" and various other oft repeated phrases.

Second, I am not a theologian and have quite a simple, direct and personal faith myself...and because of that often feel unarmed when discussing theology. That is why for the most part I avoid all theological discussion here at FR, event though I occasionally do plow through them.

Your response was carefully crafted and supported, which I really appreciate and I wish I had the time to go through it point by point. For the sake of discussion, however, I would like to concentrate on just one point and that is: One of the things that impresses me about Certain Orthodox Jews is their ability and willingness to mix faith and the fight.

Let me start with a couple of foundational points. First, I am a complete supporter of Israel and a Jewish State and believe that the Palestinians are victims of themselves...not victims of the evil Jewish people who "stole their land." A complete and utter absurdity. Secondly, I also admire their quest ability to defend themselves in an enormously hostile area. Third, there is no doubt that Biblical history gives us a great perspective on why things are the way they are. If only Abraham had been patient and waited for the Lord, things would be VERY different today. An excellent object lesson in "the sins of the father."

That said, it makes complete sense to those of the Jewish Tradition, who do not embrace Jesus as the Messiah, to support a political system that intertwines faith, tradition and the fight. There has always been a political element to what they expect from the Messiah.

If you read the NT, you find many references to the disappointment many Jews had that Christ was not here to establish a political kingdom on earth, but rather a spiritual kingdom in Heaven. His entire life was about faith apart from politics, more than politics and greater than politics.

Christ gave his life for EVERYONE, not just His Flock. He gave his life for the persecutors and the persecuted. The victim and the victimizer. The strong and the weak. The only string attached: We must accept that gift. His flock are simply those who recognize they are sinners and ask for His Grace.

What we must fight for, in this country, is the freedom to explain that gift to others...not to establish some kind of Christian Kingdom on earth. When we fight for freedom, we fight for the opportunity for all to choose according to their own conscience. He gives that freedom to us...and He expects us to defend that freedom for others. THAT is the very sound principle (The fundamentally Christian principle of free will) that this country has embraced from the very beginning.

That does not mean we don't fight immorality, or speak forthrightly, or tell a different story than we get from the dominant culture. We most CERTAINLY do...but there is a difference between showing a different way, and imposing a different way. And it takes an enormous amount of care, and much more work, to do it in the public square by offering the choice. It doesn't mean we shrink from the fight for "free expression thereof." In fact, one of the big fights I believe is WORTH fighting is optional prayer in schools. The no prayer on school grounds issue is most clearly a violation of "free expression thereof." I'm not sure that arguing over tour guide's narrative the ten commandments artwork in the SCOTUS building is worth the same energy.

Finally, one last thing. Years ago there was a crisis in our extended family that required a great deal of complex and confusing decision making. My uncle, who is a pastor, reminded us all of something I will never forget and has been an important part of my life ever since. He said that since we had put the entire matter in God's hands, we needed to make the best decisions we could...and then trust that no matter what we decided to do, God's will would be done. His will is not bound by MY decision when I leave it in His hands.

I have been at complete peace ever since...for my country, for my family and for myself. In the end, I will do the best I can, but His will be done.

Blessings.

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.