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

Skip to comments.

Don't frighten the horses: What Larry Craig tells conservatives about ourselves.
vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford

Posted on 08/31/2007 3:32:33 PM PDT by nathanbedford

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2007 3:32:48 PM PDT by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

A public bathroom is private?


2 posted on 08/31/2007 3:34:11 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The Surpoeme Court did not, and cannot wreck right and wrong. They just condoned and underwrote a wrong...that does not make it right.


3 posted on 08/31/2007 3:35:41 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not Free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I thought I said it was " quasi-private" and "quasi-public"


4 posted on 08/31/2007 3:37:26 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
The Surpoeme Court did not, and cannot wreck right and wrong. They just condoned and underwrote a wrong...that does not make it right.

That's what the segregationists said after Brown V. Board


5 posted on 08/31/2007 3:39:20 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

He’s a homo. End of story.


6 posted on 08/31/2007 3:40:38 PM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
They dropped the greater of the charges of him staring into the stall for the lesser charge he pled (not pleaded) guilty to.
7 posted on 08/31/2007 3:41:32 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
He’s a homo. End of story.

No, end of discussion.


8 posted on 08/31/2007 3:42:56 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“No, end of discussion.”

You got that.


9 posted on 08/31/2007 3:45:49 PM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I have seen both usages of the past imperfect for, to plead. For example, National Public Radio which I get in my car over here on Armed Forces network uses "pleaded."

The bottom line is they didn't bring a charge on because they didn't have it.


10 posted on 08/31/2007 3:47:54 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
You got that.

No


11 posted on 08/31/2007 3:49:50 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
This entire situation is a no brainer.

Sex in public is wrong and illegal across the board period.

Law enforcements choices are limited to prevention or prosecution.

I vote for prosecution. Prevention only works until ones back is turned. Prosecution is a far more effective deterrent.

The only hypocrisy is in the politics of jackasses.

12 posted on 08/31/2007 3:50:14 PM PDT by Manic_Episode (Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The bottom line is they didn't bring a charge on because they didn't have it.

He's already pled guilty. This has been adjudicated and done with. I'm not sure 'what' you are defending.
13 posted on 08/31/2007 3:51:12 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
just what did he plead guilty to?


14 posted on 08/31/2007 3:52:07 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

If you’re innocent, you plead guilty. I don’t care if the charge was jaywalking.

He might be a senator, but he’s not a rocket scientist. He plead.


15 posted on 08/31/2007 3:53:07 PM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Irrespective, the truth still stands, the supreme court is not the final authority on what is right and wrong.

We have activst and in some cases, immoral judges ruling on matters of morality. Morality is the underpinning of our free society.

Sooner or later, the trend will reverse itself...or we will lose more and more of our our freedoms and liberty and the very heritage that made them possible in the first place.

But even that will not change the difference between right and wrong...just our position in relation to it.

16 posted on 08/31/2007 3:54:02 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not Free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: toddlintown
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct.

Just what did he do that was so disorderly?


17 posted on 08/31/2007 3:55:46 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Third, as conservatives we fear, above all things, intrusive government. We should be wary lest we tolerate government peccadilloes against homosexuals because we are disgusted by them. As conservatives we are rightly or reluctant to turn to the government for solutions to social problems.

Craig violated a local city ordinance. There's no federal law banning solicitation of sex in public restrooms.

I'm as libertarian as they come but sex in public restrooms should be prohibited at the local and state level.

18 posted on 08/31/2007 3:57:24 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Why plead to anything?


19 posted on 08/31/2007 3:57:54 PM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Defendants often plead to an amended charge that doesn’t fit the conduct alleged to avoid risking a conviction of the original charge. Since Disorderly Conduct doesn’t have the sexual connection, the senator was sure it would look better than the original solicitation charge. You bring up a good point on the solicitation charge-I know of no solitation charge that doesn’t have an illegal activity as the target of the solicitation. If they could prove he was soliciting public lewdness, it would be a crime. But how do they prove the intent wasn’t to go and get a room? In busting prostitutes, an act and a price have to be verbally confirmed (the crime is sex for money). It seems that the detectives in the airport would have to get an agreement to perform an act in the airport john before there’s a crime. Just the solicitation is inchoate and the supposed target activity may not be criminal at all. The whole sting operation, if it doesn’t result in an agreement to violate the law, may be bogus. I’m a prosecutor and I don’t know the answer, if we’re getting the whole story.


20 posted on 08/31/2007 4:01:35 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I don't disagree with anything you said there nor does anything you said there disagree with anything I wrote. Certainly the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of morality that is a question between us and our God. But the Supreme Court is surely the final arbiter of law and to maintain otherwise is simply ludicrous.

My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral but there are now limits to the ability of conservatives to impose their morality through the law-and that is not entirely a bad thing when you see how these bathroom prosecutions undermine our rule of law.

You will also note that I'm very firm that we conservatives should expect the law to oppose homosexuality in support of higher values.


21 posted on 08/31/2007 4:02:48 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“So we conservatives have a problem”? I don’t have a problem..........the liberal judges have the problem. Show me where, in our Constitution it talks about gays having any rights that contradict the Judeo/Christian values that this country was founded on.


22 posted on 08/31/2007 4:06:01 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Great points...


23 posted on 08/31/2007 4:07:07 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Well, I would argue that a President or a Congress with gumption, is the equal to the Surpeme Court on matters of law, or ought to be. Although the Court interprets law, they do not make it or enforce it.

They are all three coequal and all charged and oathed to protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

As Andrew Jackson said when speaking of the then Supreme Court Justice's opinion..."let him enforce it."

As to the other, we are in agreement.

24 posted on 08/31/2007 4:07:53 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not Free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

See post #7 and check you’re facts.


25 posted on 08/31/2007 4:09:23 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spok; Extremely Extreme Extremist
I think you understand that I am driving at the fatal inconsistency of the law which makes a distinction between solicitation for homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.

Your questions about the inchoate nature of the sting reveals just how fundamentally unconservative these bathrooms sting operations are and how dangerous they can be.

Craig pled to disorderly conduct because they had him by the balls even though I see nothing in his conduct which constitutes lewdness, solicitation, or disorderly conduct. They had him because he was exposed as a bathroom pervert. But that is not a crime unless you act lewdly, solicit, or act disorderly.


26 posted on 08/31/2007 4:10:18 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Best analysis of the "situation" I have read to date.

Well said!

27 posted on 08/31/2007 4:11:52 PM PDT by ImpBill ("America ... Where are you now?" --Greg Adams--Brownsville, TX --On the other Front Line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I believe in virtue. Its the value that pays tribute to the vice called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

28 posted on 08/31/2007 4:13:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I am aware that there is a factual question about how long Craig actually stared into the stall. But the bottom line is that no charge was brought.

I have already assumed Craig to be "guilty" in that I believe he was seeking a homosexual encounter but I am not willing to conclude his guilt of a crime that even the policeman who stung him was not willing to charge.


29 posted on 08/31/2007 4:16:08 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The law does not prohibit sexual behavior but rather indecent or grossly offensive behavior in a public setting. But you're right, our attitudes are conflicted. We don't want to persecute homosexuals and at the same time we are repelled by their cruising public places for sex and making out in them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

30 posted on 08/31/2007 4:16:22 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
“So we conservatives have a problem”? I don’t have a problem

As a conservative you had a problem last November and you are very likely to have an even bigger problem November 2008.


31 posted on 08/31/2007 4:19:15 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Spok
re: I’m a prosecutor and I don’t know the answer, if we’re getting the whole story.)))

I'm not one, and I hope that there's more to the story...because if this is the story, we've been played once again for idiots. The spectacle of GOP Senators denouncing and demanding resignation from one of their own for some very confusing and ambiguous charge of playing footsie--that there were no words exchanged between the undercover toilet cop and the perp, much less physical contact---if this is all there is, we've just weakened our position in the Senate for practically nothing.

Supposedly we tolerate homosexuality in the GOP, even in the most conservative state of South Carolina. "Minding one's own business" etc. South Carolinians who voted for Lindsey Graham had a strong suspicion that he's probably not straight. As long as he did not choose to make his alleged preferences a problem for his constituents, even this southern buckle on the Bible belt was willing to mind it's own business. He's proven only to represent one constituent--John McCain.

But I digress. Is Craig a lawyer? His huge error was in not calling a lawyer after his arrest. He looks to be in heavy denial in what trouble one can get into when accused of some absurd crime. Plead to a lesser charge and expect it to go away? A stupid moment and he'll pay dearly.

But I'd like to know--if we are in the business of tolerating homosexuality, won't we come out losers in the long run for throwing Craig under the bus for a suspicion of homosexuality, when no words were exchanged and no physical contact involved?

I guess Lindsey Graham will call us bigots again. LOL. Where is Little Lord Lindsey on the Craig debacle, anyway?

32 posted on 08/31/2007 4:19:27 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Ping #32


33 posted on 08/31/2007 4:20:41 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I am aware that there is a factual question about how long Craig actually stared into the stall. But the bottom line is that no charge was brought. I have already assumed Craig to be "guilty" in that I believe he was seeking a homosexual encounter but I am not willing to conclude his guilt of a crime that even the policeman who stung him was not willing to charge.

He already admitted guilt.
34 posted on 08/31/2007 4:21:37 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: goldstategop
I believe in virtue. Its the value that pays tribute to the vice called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should be properly understood as the absence of standards rather than the failure to live up to standards.

I believe the absence of standards is debauchery. Hypocrisy is the failure to live up to standards which one proclaims and usually demands of others. That is why Craig is a hypocrite.


36 posted on 08/31/2007 4:22:22 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The only “problem” we have is that our constitution was written in a more civilized time, by more civilized men who didn’t dream that someday their degenerate descendants would walk the land they were taming proclaiming special rights for those who practice sodomy.

As for me, I make no secret of the fact that homosexuality is a vile practice and utterly incompatible both with conservatism and with a party that proclaims it.

If the Republicans wish to become libertarians, they can do so without my vote.


37 posted on 08/31/2007 4:22:47 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Rudy = Hillary, Fred = Dole, Romney = Kerry, McCain = Crazy. No Thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, not a matter of morality. Within America's legal framework, the Court found that the state's right to interfere in private sexual matters is greatly outweighed by the individual's right to privacy. If, as Russell Kirk said, conservatives prize liberty over equality, then the liberty to indulge personal vices in private should trump the state's questionable concern over private behavior. The Court's decision was the right one.

It is highly debatable whether it was the MORAL one.

38 posted on 08/31/2007 4:23:02 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shield
Thanks


39 posted on 08/31/2007 4:24:04 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral”
Thats where you lost me.


40 posted on 08/31/2007 4:24:44 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
No. My view there is good reason to protect people from untoward displays of immodesty in public, to preserve the character of a decent society. But we should have not have a care for what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. The government should stay out of the bedroom but aggressively police the public square. Then we should not fear the charge of hypocrisy being leveled against Republicans. Whatever two people do behind closed doors is between them and God. Whatever people do in front of others that is immoral is the concern of society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

41 posted on 08/31/2007 4:24:48 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
We're all hypocrites because all of us fall short and sin at times. We freely admit it. What makes us different from the Left is we do not deny the necessity of living up to the standards we proclaim for ourselves and demand others follow.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

42 posted on 08/31/2007 4:28:15 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I am inclined to agree with you in regard to vice laws and their enforcement by a state that is skirting the boundaries of its own Constitutional mandate in even addressing them in the first place. However, there are in my view certain overweening issues involved with this particular case.

The first involves the business of the state in prohibiting public sex. There are serious public health issues involved here that in my estimation do fall within the Constitutional purview of the state. Whether this may be extended to solicitiation of sex in public is highly debatable. However, in practice is isn't only solicitation that goes on in these places, it's the act itself, hence the interest of the state in preventing it by discouraging its precursor. I can see both sides of this but am tempted to conclude that were solicitation the only thing involved it shouldn't be illegal. But that brings us to the second point.

It was illegal. Whether this was by virtue of malum in se as the moralists (and the hygienists) would have it, or merely malum prohibitum, the fact is that it was illegal and Mr. Craig was a professional in the business of making law for others. One might or might not support such a law as the one he pleaded guilty to breaking, but the fact of the matter is that as a public servant he is, in my estimation, absolutely obligated to obey it. The rest of us are. If it is a bad law we should review it, but in the meantime it is the law.

One of the most corrosive actions possible with regard to controlling the size of government is to exempt those making the laws from following them. In the Kennedy, Studds, and Frank cases (among many, many others) we already have this sort of de facto exemption in place. That does not mean we should expand it to be "fair", it means we should contract it by applying the law across the board. In practice we have a long way to go to effect this, but that does not mean we should abandon it.

The legal verdict already is in in this case - a guilty plea. The moral verdict will have to wait until Craig stands before his Maker. The professional verdict, however, is strictly between Craig and his employers, the citizens of Idaho, and I am in no doubt whatsoever what that verdict would have been were he to have stood for re-election.

43 posted on 08/31/2007 4:28:56 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
he was not charged with looking into the stall. He did not plead guilty to that. I do not have it before me but if you read the disorderly conduct ordinance it has absolutely nothing to do with the facts in this case.

He pled because he made a judgment that was the best way out for him. His problem was not the criminal liability which might attach even for solicitation, his problem was the loss of his Senate seat which would ensue in the wake of notoriety. That is why he pled. And that is why he chose to plead to an ordinance which had nothing to do with homosexuality.

This is the problem with this case and with our approach in the law to these matters.


44 posted on 08/31/2007 4:29:41 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
...no innocent child would be debauched as a result of encountering such hand signals and foot tappings, the public would be in no danger of being affronted by the solicitation itself.If some old guy was waving his hand under my kid's stall (as Craig was supposedly doing), he wouldn't be leaving the bathroom with that hand.
45 posted on 08/31/2007 4:29:56 PM PDT by New Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Good question. But I think what made people despise Craig more than the alleged offense was his failure to defend his reputation. I would fight to keep mine even if it would cost me my life. A man without honor is worth nothing in any one's eyes.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

46 posted on 08/31/2007 4:31:48 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
For what it’s worth Jeff, I (and betting most other conservatives) agree with you! It is unnatural, and extremely unhealthy. End of discussion, or it should be.

We hear libs sounding bogus alarms for the pulic health and well being day in and day out, and NOTHING about the dangers of this disease and injury ridden lifestyle. I will not lie to them. That is called being an enabler, and it isn’t helpful or loving.

47 posted on 08/31/2007 4:32:56 PM PDT by gidget7 ( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

You have a good deal of faith in this individual. You should angle you’re intelligence towards more fruitful areas IMO.


48 posted on 08/31/2007 4:35:32 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, not a matter of morality. Within America's legal framework, the Court found that the state's right to interfere in private sexual matters is greatly outweighed by the individual's right to privacy. If, as Russell Kirk said, conservatives prize liberty over equality, then the liberty to indulge personal vices in private should trump the state's questionable concern over private behavior. The Court's decision was the right one.

The Supreme Court based its grant of her right to commit sodomy in private on the nonexistent privacy clause of the Constitution-the same clause which justifies abortion. I see no law in the Constitution which grants to the federal government through the judicial branch the right to restrain a state from regulating sodomy on privacy grounds. I say that you have it exactly backwards, that it was the Supreme Court which ruled as a matter of morality and not of law. When you say they weighed that morality against privacy I say that is a moral judgment because there is no such privacy clause in the Constitution.


49 posted on 08/31/2007 4:37:14 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Exactly right. And if folks who are cops or can change their policies even if they aren’t, then they should on the local level.

I applaud the efforts of this city to stop this indecent and disgusting problem.

50 posted on 08/31/2007 4:37:54 PM PDT by gidget7 ( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 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