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

Skip to comments.

Log Cabin Republicans Responds to State of the Union Address (demand legalizing homosex in military)
Log Cabin Republicans ^ | Jan 27, 2010 | Charles T. Moran

Posted on 01/28/2010 5:27:43 PM PST by DesertRenegade

President Obama’s address to the nation tonight provides a stark contrast to the reality that all Americans – not just gays and lesbians – are living,” comments Terry W. Hamilton. “The increasingly dominant role of government in the daily life of gays and lesbians under President Obama’s leadership has done nothing but put our community in jeopardy – from his support of the Estate Tax, instructing his Administration to defend the failed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in court, to stifling small business development across the nation, all Americans should take heed to his overarching promises that are long on rhetoric and short on action.

Log Cabin Republicans national spokesperson Charles T. Moran, comments: “President Obama is more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists than he is about the rights of gay and lesbian Americans who are putting their lives on the line every day fighting to preserve peace and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who operate small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.”

President Obama in his address Wednesday night specifically advocated for a repeal of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which he has reiterated on several occasions both as a candidate and as the President. In an alarming contradiction to his stated public policy position, President Obama has instructed his Justice Department to fight the only lawsuit in modern times challenging ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ of which Log Cabin Republicans is the sole plaintiff.

“Again, President Obama calls on Congress to do one thing, yet he instructs his Administration and his Justice Department to take the opposite action. Which way is it, President Obama?” comments Moran.

The case in question, Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States of America, is the first direct challenge to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law filed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. It is also the only contemporary legal challenge to this law to succeed at the district court level. One of the injured parties named in the case, Alexander Nicholson, is a former U.S. Army Human Intelligence Collector who speaks multiple languages, including Arabic, and who was fired because of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law just six months after 9/11. Another injured party in the case, listed simply as ‘John Doe,’ currently serves in the Armed Forces and would face a discharge if his identity were revealed.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; bhosotu; dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; logcabin; logcabinrepublicans; rinos; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
This is why I've never trusted this RHINO group. They value their bizarre sexual fetish more than the security of the country. With our military involved in two wars, now is NOT the time to introduce homosexuality into our military barracks. Our military would become the laughing stock of the world - maybe that's what these traitorous fruits want.
1 posted on 01/28/2010 5:27:44 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

No fags in my military. We did not like them back then and the troops don’t want to share showers and rooms with them now.


2 posted on 01/28/2010 5:32:27 PM PST by RetiredArmy (Stay armed. Buy bullets. Buy guns. Protect yourself - the government isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

It appears as though the leftwing, liberal ‘RAT kooks have finally taken over the Log Cabin “republicans”.


3 posted on 01/28/2010 5:32:35 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (J.D. Hayworth for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Look at Mitt Romney's own letter to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994. Now he is a major Republican candidate for President.

"One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share."

Sincerely, W. Mitt Romney

4 posted on 01/28/2010 5:34:10 PM PST by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I seem to recall the UCMJ laws do not permit this practice. This is typical of liberals; long held laws that stand in their way are either eliminated or bent to their own purposes.


5 posted on 01/28/2010 5:38:33 PM PST by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

yeah Al Qaeda will be shaking in their boots now
6 posted on 01/28/2010 5:39:00 PM PST by ari-freedom (Let me be clear: Obama sux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Isn’t it ironic how groups that represent a minor percentage of the population are always demanding this and that. It’s getting to be ridiculous such as Illegal Aliens Rights groups demanding watering stations in the desert for illegal crossers. Maybe it’s time the majority of us start demanding what we want. For example, suppose the majority of white working males demanded an end to minority preferential treatment in job promotions in this country and then walked off the job for a week when they didn’t get what they wanted.


7 posted on 01/28/2010 5:39:48 PM PST by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbosque

Another problem is the risk of introducing HIV into the blood supply. The FDA strictly bans all homosexuals from donating blood anywhere in the USA because of their increased risk. BO wants to now pump homosexual blood into the critical combat transfusion supply. That is pure insanity.


8 posted on 01/28/2010 5:40:14 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

WHATEVER THE LOG CABIN “REPUBLICANS” SUPPORT; I SUPPORT THE OPPOSITE OF THIS DEM. GROUP!~


9 posted on 01/28/2010 5:41:31 PM PST by JSDude1 (www.wethepeopleindiana.org (Tea Party Member-Proud), www.travishankins.com (R- IN 09 2010!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Gomer says “Hey”.


10 posted on 01/28/2010 5:45:44 PM PST by Jane Long (Clean out Congress...give 'em term limits and their own dose of "government" healthcare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Gay Republicans. Now there’s a demographic with DOZENS of voters!


11 posted on 01/28/2010 5:47:46 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

those of us who have served knwo this is a big mistake and will cause all sorts of problems
what’s next homo parties on base
homo pride parades on base
ignoring two homos having sex in a shower
if a homo gets a charge against him then the homo groups will say he is being picked on.
homo has a fight with a normal guy and we all know we fight with each other as tempers flare in the marines and army sometimes and we fight but drink together after, now what if I have a fight with a homo and then he states I beat him because he is a homo
will a homo officer give a promotion to his homo friend

those wanting this have forgot that this is women wanting to insert their penis into another mans ass plus they have never served .
they have no idea what it is like in the military and how we act, this is not civvy street where we should all get along this is the military where honesty is much more clear
there is so many problems


12 posted on 01/28/2010 5:49:05 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Gay Republicans. Now there’s a demographic with DOZENS of voters!
... and that’s not even counting Sen. Lindsey Graham.


13 posted on 01/28/2010 5:49:12 PM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed demanding a free sex change operation for some mentally deranged soldier?


14 posted on 01/28/2010 5:50:12 PM PST by dynachrome (Barack Hussein Obama yunikku khinaaziir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antidemoncrat

agreed maybe millions of us march to DC and camp there until he steps down and his radicals too

we have a few small groups representing a small % of the population getting what they want while we get told to piss off and be told off at his speeches


15 posted on 01/28/2010 5:50:43 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Everyone going to CPAC make sure you congratulate their homosexual activist sponsor "GOPROUD" on this huge win for them.

16 posted on 01/28/2010 5:51:54 PM PST by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the existing Constitution"Obama Adviser)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I don’t think that they took anything over—they were there second they were embraced under the “big tent” movement. All they needed was their nose under the tent and the right moment to make their move.


17 posted on 01/28/2010 5:56:59 PM PST by Nickname (2012 - Yes You're Canned!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

They will become a protected class within the military more than they are now. We’ll see congressional outlays for additional military construction of two man queer barracks rooms sooner or later in order to placate them and keep other troops from harassing them. This move also threatens retention rates more than multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan ever will. This is a really stupid move, but then we have a boy as CINC who’s never worn a U.S. military uniform a day in his life.


18 posted on 01/28/2010 6:00:28 PM PST by TADSLOS (Presidential charisma without repect for liberty is a dangerous trait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
We did not like them back then and the troops don’t want to share showers and rooms with them now.

I have no problems with homosexuals in the military. The military is filled with them and I personally shared an open barracks with a half dozen. Everybody did their jobs and personal lives were conducted off base............nobody cared. So any claim that homosexuals in the military leads to a decrease in morale is bogus...........

In fact, my experience in the military shows me that politics, social issues, race and sexual identity all take a back seat to mission objectives and comaraderie............

Just keep in mind that the same arguments against homosexuals in the military were also to a certain extent once used against blacks.........and those proved bogus also.

19 posted on 01/28/2010 6:01:43 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (I want a hoochie-mama for Christmas, only a hoochie-mama will do............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Let’s see we already have rampant pregnancy so let’s exacerbate the destruction of our military by encouraging and protecting open homosexually. Heck if we are going to go down in flames let’s really go down in flames.

We have completely lost our minds in this nation.


20 posted on 01/28/2010 6:01:55 PM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

For me it’s pretty simple: I consider any group that wants to weaken the US Military to be my enemy.


21 posted on 01/28/2010 6:02:40 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

My post to another thread on related topic:

“It’s deliberate undermining of our military by the Leftists. They hate the military, and they hate the military professionals. The Leftists are siccing their pink, perfumed undies brigade on them. What could be more devastating to morale?”

Doesn’t quite fit on this thread, but is close enough.


22 posted on 01/28/2010 6:24:13 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...Call 'em What you Will, They ALL have Fairies Living In Their Trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade
Well we got WAVES and WACKS...
Why not.. Goons(lezzies) and Dracks(packers)..
23 posted on 01/28/2010 6:24:29 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

There’s always negative consequences whenever the Democrats get involved.


24 posted on 01/28/2010 6:24:58 PM PST by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

It’s already legal — practitioners are just required to keep it a secret from their superior officers and fellow service members. This is an astoundingly idiotic policy. If you have trouble grasping why, just imagine if the military had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for adherents of the Muslim religion (any and all brands).


25 posted on 01/28/2010 6:25:03 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

For me it’s pretty simple: I consider anyone who wants to weaken the US Military to be my enemy.


26 posted on 01/28/2010 6:27:13 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

There are already gay people in the military.

That being said, I don’t think they the question needs to be asked, or not, etc.


27 posted on 01/28/2010 6:35:13 PM PST by merry10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

It weakens the US military when it kicks out competent people who have language skills that are desperately needed and in short supply. Many of the jobs requiring these languages are stateside jobs that don’t involve living in barracks. They involve working in an office translating intercepted communications. I don’t want Americans — including American military service members — getting killed because our intelligence translators are months behind in translating intercepted communications, because needed staff has not been hired and has been let go, due solely to what their preferred sexual activities are in their personal, off-duty time.


28 posted on 01/28/2010 6:35:34 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: manc

what about a guy soldier and a girl soldier having sex in the laundry room? Is that not disruptive?


29 posted on 01/28/2010 6:36:43 PM PST by merry10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: merry10

have you served I bet no other wise you would not ask that?


30 posted on 01/28/2010 6:41:50 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: merry10

another thing

you said a guy soldier and a woman

well that is not disgusting as it is normal two men wanting to stick their penis up each others ass is not normal and they need mental help thinking it is


31 posted on 01/28/2010 6:48:09 PM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: merry10

Exactly. Military service members are already subject to much stricter limits on sexual activities than civilians, and there’s no reason that concept shouldn’t be applied to gay service members. Tough to do that, though, when they’re all hiding their sexual orientation, per orders from on high.


32 posted on 01/28/2010 6:49:56 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

“the troops don’t want to share showers and rooms with them now.”

and their blood


33 posted on 01/28/2010 7:06:59 PM PST by ari-freedom (Let me be clear: Obama sux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“If you have trouble grasping why, just imagine if the military had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for adherents of the Muslim religion (any and all brands).”

The FDA bans any and every homosexual from donating blood in the USA. Do you understand the reason for that and the tremendous threat it would cause to the military’s combat blood supply?


34 posted on 01/28/2010 7:23:08 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

The military tests its members and prospective members for AIDS and hepatitis, and won’t let anybody serve or continue serving if they test positive. Face it, lots of heterosexual male service members frequent prostitutes and can easily get infected with HIV that way if they aren’t very careful. If there was a chronic shortage of blood for civilian use in the US, the FDA would change that rule and require additional testing of the donated blood instead — as it stands now, the additional blood isn’t needed and increasing the testing procedures would just drive up the cost of blood.


35 posted on 01/28/2010 8:16:04 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

That does not address the issue. No one disagrees that homosexual males are at MUCH greater risk of AIDS than any other demographic. By inviting this sort of degeneracy into our military units only asks for major problems. The military would incur a HUGE extra cost of AIDS and STD testing every single day. If a homosexual soldier were to test negative and then go to a bathhouse the next night, bingo - he contracts HIV. Then he puts his fellow soldiers at risk in any type of combat where they might come in contact with his blood. It’s just common sense not to increase this risk by recruiting active homosexuals into our military.


36 posted on 01/28/2010 9:04:18 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

That silly. If a heterosexual soldier tests negative for HIV and goes to a whorehouse the next night, bingo, HE can contract HIV too. The general population of homosexual males is not a proxy for the population of homosexual males who have the qualifications and inclination to join the military and also pass HIV screening at entry. The general population of homosexual males includes men who are drug users, alcoholics, undisciplined lazy bums, and various other qualities that would disqualify them from military service regardless of their sexual orientation. Those categories of unqualified men are also by far the most likely to be HIV infected.


37 posted on 01/28/2010 9:32:49 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

And please note that I’m not advocating a policy of no restrictions whatsoever on military service by active homosexual men. Combat and submarine settings, for example, would clearly be problematic. On the other hand, it’s perfectly clear that having active homosexuals providing urgently needed translation services while working in office settings can save lives, both military and civilian, and thus barring them from military service is just self-defeating stupidity.


38 posted on 01/28/2010 9:36:03 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“If a heterosexual soldier tests negative for HIV and goes to a whorehouse the next night, bingo, HE can contract HIV too.”

LOL, you can’t be serious. Are you aware that the percentage of males who contract HIV from females is approximately 0.000021% while homosexuals are about 86%. That makes homosexuals statistically hundreds of thousands of times at increased risk. Do you really want to make such a silly argument in favor of that lifestyle choice?


39 posted on 01/28/2010 10:27:38 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“it’s perfectly clear that having active homosexuals providing urgently needed translation services while working in office settings can save lives, both military and civilian, and thus barring them from military service is just self-defeating stupidity.”

The current policy has been working fine. Do you understand that your suggestion of separate pink barracks, separate homo shower areas, etc would involve a huge added expense and hassle for the military? You agree that active sodomists are incompatible with military service on ships or submarines. Do you see that it also applies to close quarters barracks and shower facilities? We would never propose having young male soldiers shower with nude females. Why is that?


40 posted on 01/28/2010 10:31:50 PM PST by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

The percentage is much lower overall for heterosexual males, but nowhere near that much lower for men who regularly have sex with prostitutes, who are much more likely to be HIV-infected. And don’t forget heterosexual women who engage in anal sex — the difference in transmission rate is due to receptive anal sex, without regard to the gender of the receiver. Lesbians have much *lower* rates of HIV infection than heterosexual women, for this reason, so why on earth is the military subjecting lesbians to the idiotic “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? If HIV is such a big factor in this policy (which it isn’t, but you seem to think it is, so we’ll assume it is for the sake of argument), then the military should be knocking itself out to recruit lesbians.


41 posted on 01/28/2010 10:35:10 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I’m not suggesting separate anything. I’m suggesting not allowing homosexual *men* (women are a whole different story) to serve in those settings at all. If that means that homosexual men whose only qualifications for military service is in those areas don’t get hired, that’s fine. What’s not fine is turning away or kicking out Arabic and Pashtun speakers whose skills are urgently needed in settings which do *not* involve group sleeping rooms or group showers.


42 posted on 01/28/2010 10:38:17 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: manc

Watch also for chaplains being court-martialed for “hate speech” if they dare to preach what the Bible says about homosexual perversion.


43 posted on 01/29/2010 12:48:18 AM PST by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: manc

It does not matter to me whether it’s normal or abnormal. I’m asking if it is distracting. Have you heard of the Love Boat? One of the first submarine tenders to have a mixed crew, and how many pregnancies resulted?

Your argument for normal or abnormal does not make sense. You’re inconsistent. You really think that professionally trained military officers and enlisted personnel, in the heat of battle are going to start having sex?


44 posted on 01/29/2010 3:45:52 AM PST by merry10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

You have your opinion and I have mine. I have a hard time believing you knowingly knew you had several living in the barracks with you. In my 20 years in the Army, I NEVER had ONE admit being a homosexual around any other troop. I know of several who were kicked out for it, but never admitting they were and living in the barracks with them. They would not have survived. I find your statement very very hard to believe.


45 posted on 01/29/2010 5:35:18 AM PST by RetiredArmy (Stay armed. Buy bullets. Buy guns. Protect yourself - the government isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: merry10

no it doesn’t matter to you because probably you have a daughter or son, friend whpo is a homosexual.
you sound like the crowd who watches Oprah and says they don’t care but can’t even thnk about the acts they do together.

Have you served?
I have and I know how things are in the military and I am telling you that having open homosexuals in serving is a big mistake of which I have already mentioned previously.

you’re on here as a so called conservative and yet you are now trying to defend to have open homosexuals in the military, an institution which I bet you have not served in

I’m going out on a limb here but is someone in your family a homosexual and if so have you actually thought of he/her doing these acts to the same sex?
I ask because of what of what you said and it sounds like the usual crap they would say.


46 posted on 01/29/2010 8:17:57 AM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

Relevant to your interests ping.


47 posted on 01/29/2010 8:19:28 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc
two men wanting to stick their penis up each others ass

I bow to your superior experience.

48 posted on 01/29/2010 8:22:26 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

well it’s pretty obvious what queer two men do with each other isn’t it.???


49 posted on 01/29/2010 8:24:44 AM PST by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

>Log Cabin Republicans national spokesperson Charles T. Moran, comments: “President Obama is more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists than he is about the rights of gay and lesbian Americans who are putting their lives on the line every day fighting to preserve peace and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who operate small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.”<

So the rights of heterosexual people in the military, to be able to live in close quarters without being harassed, mean nothing? So, when some jerk makes a pass at a straight man, and gets punched in the nose, the jerk won’t go crying to his higher ups, because he’s been the victim of haterz?


50 posted on 01/29/2010 8:28:15 AM PST by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 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