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

Skip to comments.

Fake Obama Kenya birth certificate?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate ^ | 08/02/2009

Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,190 next last
To: Cringing Negativism Network

Pray you are right , obviously , but have serious doubts and it’s not just the Mombassa / Zanzibar / Kenya thing . We should soon know .


151 posted on 08/02/2009 6:04:23 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

if we keep on top of this eventually all the documents will have to come out—not just his BC but all his missing school records, esp for the time he was in Indoneisa


152 posted on 08/02/2009 6:04:37 PM PDT by romans828
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Perhaps Kenya’s connection with England would mean that lots of bureaucrats with British names are all over the place.


153 posted on 08/02/2009 6:05:08 PM PDT by 1951Boomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
At the time the document was prepared, Mombasa was indeed Kenya.

Not fake. :)

The question is why would Obama Sr. travel to Zanzibar to have his child? And not have his child in either his own country or his wife's country?

That's what seems fake about it to me. Someone made this up with Mombasa as the birthplace because that's been the rumor going around for the past year or so. But this new (to me) information about Mombasa not even being part of Kenya when Obama was born makes it seem extremely unlikely that he was born there.

154 posted on 08/02/2009 6:06:02 PM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: romans828

Good question. Why did I have to show my whole life for the INS and Coustoms while Hussein didn’t. Eventually I took a job with DHS. Low level - Bared my soul.


155 posted on 08/02/2009 6:06:17 PM PDT by appleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: romans828

“my question is, how in the WORLD did he get a security clearance without proving where he was born!!!”

Sadly, elected officials don’t require security clearance. When the people elect you they have cleared you for access to classified material.


156 posted on 08/02/2009 6:07:29 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
That DU post is from about an hour and a half ago.

It was a result of, not a cause of, the Kenya certificate.

This poster thinks the Kenya certificate very well may be legit.

Maybe yes, maybe no. But let's not pretend that no lefties are smart enough to fake a copy. I saw a post on another thread suggesting that the folds are specific and are unlikely to be faked - unless, of course, someone had an original and used it to generate a fake.

I can't imagine who could have an original.

157 posted on 08/02/2009 6:07:34 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MrDem
For the same reason American men take their young mistress playtoys to Cancun or Bermuda or Aruba and not to Cleveland.

Their young very PREGNANT "mistress playtoys"? And they purposely have their children there, in some country that's neither theirs nor the mother's?

158 posted on 08/02/2009 6:07:39 PM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: appleseed
The U.S. Constitution requires that the President elect show proof of eligibility or he is not allowed to be President. Our Congress owes us an explanation or else face the consequences.

I'm going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.

Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:

" ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19

TITLE 3--THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES

Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “

Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:

” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:

The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to "eligibility" qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.

The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.

There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. In fact, without establishing whether or not the President elect is "qualified", Congress would not know whether or not to step in and name a temporary replacement as the Amendment requires. Certainly, this means that the proof of "qualifications" must be presented to Congress.

If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?

If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.

Based upon the above, I conclude that:

1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms "The President elect shall have failed to qualify" clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.

2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has "standing" and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to "support" the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.

3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.

159 posted on 08/02/2009 6:08:08 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Ok, has any “decoded” why page 5733 was chosen?


160 posted on 08/02/2009 6:08:28 PM PDT by MrDem (From Morning in America to Mourning in America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"I quit....for now..."
This stuff can get a bit weary after a while. If it is meant to be zero will be fully exposed. The ramifications are great. Imagine the black folks reactions. So many along with so many of every other color in the country are so ill informed on most of all things. Agitators will take full advantage of the zero having to step down if it came to that.
Ernest. Don't feel obligated to respond. Most of us are on similar brainwaves on most of the issues.
161 posted on 08/02/2009 6:10:36 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
E.F. Lavender is the clincher. It’s most definitely a fraud.

Why? See post #59.

162 posted on 08/02/2009 6:11:06 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Obama - fooling fewer people every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: saquin
So why would Obama's father take his pregnant wife there to give birth and not to, say, the Kenyan capital city of Nairobi? You'd think he'd at least want his son born in his own country, if not in Hawaii? Why a coastal city, far from his home village and far from the capital, that was really part of Zanzibar?

I think you're being way too anal about the whole thing. Your attitude reminds me of a funny "Far Side" cartoon I saw many years ago. There are two frames in the cartoon. The first frame shows an Indian village, where a drummer holding a big drumstick has been beating loudly on a huge drum, so hard, in fact, that there's now a huge hole in one side of the instrument. The other frame shows a circled group of covered wagons, with an anxious, frightened group of people gathered round their leader, who says, "Don't worry folks ... they only attack to the sound of the drums!"

163 posted on 08/02/2009 6:11:17 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Baldrick, to you the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: saquin

Okay. Been through the OPM interview and it sucks. Maybe the current occupant didn’t have to go through it - but maybe he should. Maybe if he did - we would have been spared from this freakin nightmare. Have you ever been through it?


164 posted on 08/02/2009 6:11:17 PM PDT by appleseed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: appleseed

Worse yet is the fact that someone elected President gets automatic access to the highest classification of documents with ZERO background checks while some of us while employed by the DoD had to go through 5-year upgrades.


165 posted on 08/02/2009 6:11:23 PM PDT by PhiKapMom (Mary Fallin - OK Gov/Coburn/Rubio - Senate 2010 ! Take Back the House/Senate! Stop ZERO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: saquin

That question is impossible to answer without knowing a lot more about the places and the times. Sometimes women travel to hospitals to give birth because they have better care (perhaps American doctors?). Or, she may have been visiting someone in the area and went into labor when she was not expecting to. It’s hard to say, but that in and of itself doesn’t seem particularly damning.


166 posted on 08/02/2009 6:11:44 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: MrDem

Obama’s 57 states.

Not sure about the 33.


167 posted on 08/02/2009 6:12:14 PM PDT by Kirkwood (Report to the Unification Center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: saquin

Was Mombasa a sea port?

Perhaps they traveled by boat rather than plane and she went into labor before she could get home.

(I ask from ignorance here...just thinking aloud)


168 posted on 08/02/2009 6:12:20 PM PDT by PowerPro (2009 - Conservative Revolution Reborn (Go Palin!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
... which proves nothing except you probably fell for the "Paul is Dead" clues also.

Wait... Paul is not dead? Well, if he faked his death he is probably on the run.

169 posted on 08/02/2009 6:12:28 PM PDT by 70times7 (Serving Free Republics' warped and obscure humor needs since 1999!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Sorry, I don’t believe it is fake.


170 posted on 08/02/2009 6:12:49 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: Uncle Sham

What on earth are you talking about? There’s no requirement of proof; no previous president has been asked to prove anything about their birth, including the one who may have been born in Canada. There’s no support whatsoever for your claims, and by your logic, the office of President has ALWAYS been vacant because no one has ever “proven” their eligibility before.


171 posted on 08/02/2009 6:12:58 PM PDT by kenboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So all the anchor babies born to illegal Mexicans are not natural born citizens? (I think the “born on US soil automatically a citizen” thing needs to be changed, but it has been taken as unquestioned truth for a long time.) Their parents are not citizens but birth on US soil makes the baby a citizen, certainly a natural born citizen.

So, if OBama was born on US soil, then no one questions that he was a natural born citizen. But if he was not born on US soil, then his parentage comes into play.

But it can’t be a simple as: parents US citizens, baby US natural born citizen; parents not US citizens, baby not US natural born citizen.


172 posted on 08/02/2009 6:13:18 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.


173 posted on 08/02/2009 6:13:24 PM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The last post at the DU on the link of the first page is quite interesting.


174 posted on 08/02/2009 6:13:24 PM PDT by rodguy911 (HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE--GO SARAHCUDA !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Perhaps this registrar in Africa was named after this dude or one of his descendents? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t that the question here..if this was the name of a registrar and/or ‘district’ in Africa.....not a person?

That’s the impression I am getting from this.


175 posted on 08/02/2009 6:13:59 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
As I posted on another thread:

The signature on the document appears to be less aged than the document. Look at the folds and you can see that the other type is somewhat faded because of the folding. Whereas, the signature does not and looks fairly fresh.

I wish otherwise .......... but the document may prove to be a fake. :O(

176 posted on 08/02/2009 6:14:53 PM PDT by Old Badger (After this sorry election, boy do opportunities abound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

I admit to thinking the same thing today. This may well be a fake, but I am a little suspicious about the seemingly-coordinated hysteria about birthers over the past week.


177 posted on 08/02/2009 6:15:23 PM PDT by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: saquin
It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child.

You've obviously never heard about babies poping out early. What if they traveled to the beach and got surprised a few weeks ahead of time?

178 posted on 08/02/2009 6:15:48 PM PDT by MrDem (From Morning in America to Mourning in America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: PowerPro
Was Mombasa a sea port?

Perhaps they traveled by boat rather than plane and she went into labor before she could get home.

I understand what you're saying. And anything's possible. We're all just speculating here. But traveling halfway around the world by boat when you're apparently THISCLOSE to giving birth that you can't even wait until you're out of the port city? Seems incredibly risky and unlikely. The odds of giving birth on the high seas in such a situation would be extremely high. Would you even be allowed to take such a long trip in that condition?

179 posted on 08/02/2009 6:16:24 PM PDT by saquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Looks like Mr. Lavender had a very long career as a bureaucrat.

Or he named his son after himself.

180 posted on 08/02/2009 6:16:24 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Obama - fooling fewer people every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

181 posted on 08/02/2009 6:16:49 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrDem

Oh come on, you know that babies always arrive on their due dates! ;)


182 posted on 08/02/2009 6:17:11 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

#59 is incorrect. The second image with “E.F. Lavender” is just a close-up of the first image. But WND did say they inspected another Kenyan BC for consistencies and it checked out... they just didn’t say anything about a second signature from E.F.

I’m totally up in the air on this. I want to believe it, but I don’t want to get burned.


183 posted on 08/02/2009 6:17:36 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

Well, perhaps you can explain what section three of the Twentieth amendment means with the phrase “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” What on earth could this be talking about?


184 posted on 08/02/2009 6:17:38 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Someone went to ALOT of trouble to make this appear real.
What about the Divorce papers?


185 posted on 08/02/2009 6:17:42 PM PDT by Marty62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

I don’t get the feeling that ‘E.F. Lavender’ is a person but that it is more like a district or registar name..perhaps named after a person back in the day.


186 posted on 08/02/2009 6:18:10 PM PDT by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: WhistlingPastTheGraveyard

I ask again what may be a dumb question: Wouldn’t one expect the occasional bureaucrats/registrars to have British names, given the deep ties between the two nations? How different is it from someone like Paul Running Bear signing a BC for a kid born to a German mother while she is visiting an Indian reservation here? Not the best example, but you get my drift. I’m neither advocating nor rejecting this document’s validity. I’m just posing a question about this particular point that has everyone so riled.


187 posted on 08/02/2009 6:18:23 PM PDT by 1951Boomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Somebody made a good point :

>Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.
<


188 posted on 08/02/2009 6:18:28 PM PDT by sushiman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Fractal Trader

Which means that the “E.F. Lavender” signature in no way calls this latest document into question.

And the number: If it weren’t 47044, it would be something else—and somebody could come up with reasons that it COULDN’T be a coincidence.

I’m not convinced this is an “obvious forgery” yet.


189 posted on 08/02/2009 6:18:40 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
This Kenyan Birth Certificate is a fake as CBS memos about President Bush national guard. Free Republic was the first to expose the CBS fake memos and I hope that Free Republic will not fall for a fake Kenyan birth certificate.

It is good Jim that you spoke on this issue.

190 posted on 08/02/2009 6:20:17 PM PDT by jveritas (God Bless our brave troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
In case anyone is interested, Attorney Orly is to be on the Bill Cunningham show tonight at 10:00 Eastern. Here is the link:

http://www.premiereradio.com/shows/view/live_on_sunday_night.html

191 posted on 08/02/2009 6:20:28 PM PDT by seekthetruth ("See You In DC From 9/11 - 9/13 At Our National Freeper Tea Party Convention!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Since the Copy of the Birth Certificates states “Signature of Registrar—— E.F. Lavendar” and the Signature on the bottom of the document is the ‘Deputy Registrar’ and signed by “Joshua Simon Oduya”, that only shows they are two different people representing the government Registrar’s office.

The first, E.F. Lavender, is the name of the registrar in 1961 whose name appears on the referenced record in book 44B on page 5733. The second, E.H. Miller, is the registrar in 1964 at the time the certificate attesting to the content of the record was prepared. Joshua Simon Oduya is Mr. Miller's assistant who prepared and signed the document.

192 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:06 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: donna

To dilute the issue. To make it seem like they are all fake. Oldest playlist in the book.


193 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:22 PM PDT by FReepapalooza (Joshua 3:4 ..."for ye have not passed this way heretofore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

I just looked up the origin of the surname Lavender, and it is English. I’m agnostic on this particular document, but I don’t yet see this name as a problem in a country with close ties to England and, thus, entrenched British-surnamed bureaucrats.


194 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:32 PM PDT by 1951Boomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: shield

102181 sealed it for me fake of well


195 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:48 PM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: shield

102181 sealed it for me fake of well


196 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:49 PM PDT by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Not sure ... I did come across a William and a Frederick Lavender predating E.F., both registrars, IIRC.

FWIW.


197 posted on 08/02/2009 6:22:53 PM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Pokemon ace may miss out on world
By RANDY ERICKSON | randy.erickson@lee.net
.
Joshua Simon has been ranked No. 1 or 2 in the world for most of the Pokemon Trading Card Game season, but it looks like it might not be in the cards for him to earn a top rank in head-to-head competition at the world competition next month in San Diego, Calif.>


198 posted on 08/02/2009 6:23:06 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saquin
Not “anal”. Just asking questions like everyone else here. It simply makes no sense to me that two people would travel to a 3rd country, not either of their home countries, to have their child. If you think that’s perfectly understandable, fine. I don’t.

And what I'm saying is that there are a million and one reasons why someone might do something that might seem on the face of it to be illogical or unreasonable.

199 posted on 08/02/2009 6:23:22 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Baldrick, to you the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: saquin

Zanzibar was not a “third country.” The whole region was British-controlled but with differing structures. Mombasa was “nominally” under the control of Zanzibar, which, I believe, had at least the notion of some “autonomy” rather than a direct British colony. But Zanzibar was under heavy British influence. Eventually most of Zanzibar went with Tangyanika to form Tanzania but Mombasa went to Kenya. But it had long-standing ties to Kenya. In 1961, going to Mombasa from Kenya was not exactly “going to a third country.”


200 posted on 08/02/2009 6:23:27 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 1,151-1,190 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