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

Skip to comments.

Live Thread: Obama Nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court (10 a.m. EDT 5/10/10)
Monday, May 10, 2010 | Kristinn

Posted on 05/10/2010 6:43:56 AM PDT by kristinn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: ETL

Exactly right. It wasn’t dead when she wrote that either. Socialism has been ensconced in the United States for decades.


101 posted on 05/10/2010 7:52:19 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Excusaholic: MeCain lost to Jr., RINO endorsements are flying, & you live at 2012 Denial Blvd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
I cant even watch this SOB!!! Hate him.

My toilets flush in salute to long and brown. Sometimes twice for royal emphasis!

102 posted on 05/10/2010 7:56:25 AM PDT by tflabo (Restore the Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

here is the problem,

As long as Kagan doesn’t mind our male soldiers showering with her, or other lesbian, female partners, going to the bathroom together, and sitting around in the ward room in their underwear,...then it is all cool, and I’m for it.

Until she understands the societal nature of such an arrangement, and truly has no trepidations, she should keep her un-lipsticked mouth shut.


103 posted on 05/10/2010 7:58:29 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

And another opportunity to legislate from the bench.

Openly gay, anti-military, what’s not to love? {/sarc}


104 posted on 05/10/2010 7:59:45 AM PDT by Old Sarge (Marking Time On The Government's Dime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OCCASparky
And the liberals claimed Harriet Myers was unqualified.

So did WE.

105 posted on 05/10/2010 8:01:22 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Bork her.


106 posted on 05/10/2010 8:02:44 AM PDT by don-o (My son, Ben - Marine Lance Corporal texted me at 0330 on 2/3/10: AMERICA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

These utopian liberal, wack-jobs have no idea what they are talking about as long as it doesn’t directly and personally affect them.

Then they can go to their little cocktail parties, drink their martinis, and pat themselves on their back after implementing little-understood measures.

But,...as we are learning, elections have consequences and the conservatives have brought this on themselves.

How is it that Fox News is the most watched program over all the network programs and America still elected a raging liberal president? Its because so many were duped in thinking a new dawn was coming, and are now realizing the con.


107 posted on 05/10/2010 8:02:52 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet
Until she understands the societal nature of such an arrangement, and truly has no trepidations, she should keep her un-lipsticked mouth shut.

These SOBs understand full well the implications of what they do. It is their intention to undercut and demoralize our military.

108 posted on 05/10/2010 8:09:47 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: don-o

“Bork her.”

Bork her HARD.


109 posted on 05/10/2010 8:15:27 AM PDT by jessduntno ("My only apology is that it should have been larger." - David Obey, on his "stimulous package.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ETL

110 posted on 05/10/2010 8:15:44 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Oh, you can count on the POS Lindsay Graham to slobber all over this gal ... they probably shop at the same place for their dresses.
111 posted on 05/10/2010 8:16:55 AM PDT by JRPerry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

There seems to be a discrepancy, according to the Drudge Report headline photo, it appears as if actor John Goodman is the new appointee to the Supreme Court.

I always liked him as an actor, he’ll probably do a good job.


112 posted on 05/10/2010 8:17:47 AM PDT by waus (FUBO UFCMF, Just in case I stuttered, FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waus
I don't know ... I actually like Goodman so:
113 posted on 05/10/2010 8:23:14 AM PDT by JRPerry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
“Gaygan...needs a good Borking.”

Or a good boinking? (Gag!)

114 posted on 05/10/2010 8:30:41 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37062150/ns/politics-supreme_court/

I love this little reported gem from Jesse L. Holland of AP:

“It is unlikely that Republicans will try to block her, said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference. ...She shouldn’t be filibustered, she won’t be filibustered,” said Miranda, a former Senate staffer who worked on judicial nominations. “Probably no nominee would have been filibustered. The notion of a filibuster is a distraction. The real issue becomes how heavily she’ll be scrutinized and how great an investment in time will Republicans invest. The next level of investment is not a filibuster, but how much effort Republicans will devote to this nomination.”

Seven Republicans have already voted once for Kagan, when her nomination came before the Senate last year to become the solicitor general. That means it’s unlikely they will be able to unify to block her from the Supreme Court.”

hahaha, i’m so glad how instances like this reveal how some

conservatives just roll over. This Miranda guy needs to be fired and forced to sell Gecko food, and those republicans that voted for her before, and still feel compelled to vote for her again just because they voted for her as solicitor general, need to resign and forced to eat pork rinds for the rest of their life.

This country and the so-called conservative movement is pathetic. One day, a new leader was arise and it sure as heck won’t be that retread Romney, so everyone just get off that band-wagon.


115 posted on 05/10/2010 8:31:07 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Kaganoo court


116 posted on 05/10/2010 8:42:12 AM PDT by spokeshave (They'll get my false teeth when they pry them from my sister's cold, dead mouth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=508546


117 posted on 05/10/2010 8:42:27 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

ALL that anyone needs to know about Kagan is that....

she barred US military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus while Americans were dying at war!!!

That point needs to be hammered home relentlessly to every living American.

I believe that this is one case where detail and nuance unnecessarily complicate things with much of the public and the political/media class — pound home the point that Kagan banned military recruiters, period.

THAT is the “Achilles heel” of this nominee and of this administration.

Many people who won’t delve into the details WILL care about that and WILL be offended and appalled. People simply need to know that Obozo & co. are hard-core politically correct leftists who put their pet causes completely above US security and the men and women of the US military services.

Whether or not this specific nomination can be stopped in the Senate (unlikely) there needs to be a huge publicity campaign focused upon this single point.

We may lose this battle (over Kagan’s nomination) due to RINO Senators but *use* it to educate America about what the Obamanation really stands for.

I’d love to see Kagan’s nomination stopped, of course, but I think we need to look at it in a “tactical” way, to educate Americans and build opposition to Obozo and his clique of anti-American leftists.


118 posted on 05/10/2010 9:02:23 AM PDT by Enchante (Elena Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard Law campus while Americans dies at war!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Looks Obama establised the “Bull Dike” slot on the supreme court with this pick.

The next white guy that resigns on the court he’ll establish Muslim slot.


119 posted on 05/10/2010 9:04:32 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

I bet she and Janet Napolitano will hit it off real well.


120 posted on 05/10/2010 9:09:33 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

That’s just great. Another pinko.


121 posted on 05/10/2010 9:11:59 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Former Attorney General Ed Meese released the following statement:

First and foremost, any nominee to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court must demonstrate a thorough fidelity to apply the Constitution as it was written, rather than as they would like to re-write it. Given Solicitor General Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience, and, for that matter, very limited litigation experience, Senators must not be rushed in their deliberative process. Because they have no prior judicial opinions to look to, Senators must conduct a more searching inquiry to determine if Kagan will decide cases based upon what is required by the Constitution as it is actually written, or whether she will rule based upon her own policy preferences.

Though Ms. Kagan has not written extensively on the role of a judge, the little she has written is troubling. In a law review article, she expressed agreement with the idea that the Court primarily exists to look out for the “despised and disadvantaged.” The problem with this view—which sounds remarkably similar to President Obama’s frequent appeals to judges ruling on grounds other than law–is that it allows judges to favor whichever particular client they view as “despised and disadvantaged.” The judiciary is not to favor any one particular group, but to secure justice equally for all through impartial application of the Constitution and laws. Senators should vigorously question Ms. Kagan about such statements to determine whether she is truly committed to the rule of law. Nothing less should be expected from anyone appointed to a life-tenured position as one of the final arbiters of justice in our country.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/10/morning-bell-former-attorney-general-ed-meese-on-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell


122 posted on 05/10/2010 9:20:57 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Good Lord.


123 posted on 05/10/2010 9:21:22 AM PDT by rlmorel (We are traveling "The Road to Serfdom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Another Pinko Pig.


124 posted on 05/10/2010 9:22:51 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I wasn't sure if I could post parts of the article or not, so I chose to just give the link. What you've quoted, is the part I found troubling!

Where you been?

125 posted on 05/10/2010 9:24:47 AM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush greatly! Palin in 2012! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Why do they all look like Hillary? Was that a uniform they were required to wear in those days? Long, stringy hair, those type of glasses, and plaid shirts?

Was that some kind of secret code?


126 posted on 05/10/2010 9:25:03 AM PDT by rlmorel (We are traveling "The Road to Serfdom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Is she a sexual deviate? I am hearing that she has sex with women only.Where are the Protestants on the court? This is a harbinger on the end times.


127 posted on 05/10/2010 9:31:27 AM PDT by rogertarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart of all people has found a left-wing decision in her past that “conservatives will be right” to blast her over, and “liberals should concede the point”: her decision as Dean of Harvard Law School to oppose military recruiters on campus over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/19/potential-obama-court-pick-gays-in-the-military-more-important-than-military-recruitment/

“I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy,” wrote Kagan in 2003. It is “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order.”

So far, so good.

Not allowing openly gay and lesbian Americans into the military is a grave moral injustice and it is a disgrace that so many Republicans defend the policy to this day.

But the response that Kagan favored banning military recruiters from campus—was stupid and counterproductive.

I think it showed bad judgment.

The United States military is not Procter and Gamble. It is not just another employer.

It is the institution whose members risk their lives to protect the country.

You can disagree with the policies of the American military; you can even hate them, but you can’t alienate yourself from the institution without in a certain sense alienating yourself from the country.

Barring the military from campus is a bit like barring the president or even the flag.

It’s more than a statement of criticism; it’s a statement of national estrangement.


128 posted on 05/10/2010 9:37:08 AM PDT by rosettasister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRPerry

I agree!!! Look for mclefty to go along too... and cornyn and company.

LLS


129 posted on 05/10/2010 9:37:53 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ( WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Kagan and Obama Go Way Back
Kagan and Obama met at U of C in the ‘90s

The current Solicitor General and soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice tried her best to woo Obama to a life in academia when the two worked at the University of Chicago, according to MSNBC’s First Read.

Kagan joined the staff there in 1991 and won tenure in 1995. Obama was a part-time lecturer there between 1992 and 2004, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate, but according to reports she tried to convice him to pursue a tenure track.

Obviously Obama had more grandiose ideas about where his career would lead him, but what a perfect bookend now that he’s poised to nominate her to become the next Supreme Court Justice.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Kagan-and-Obama-Go-Way-Back-93267019.html


130 posted on 05/10/2010 9:50:32 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; All
The Democrats will put the label of "homophobe" upon those who oppose her appointment. They will proclaim that... assailing her for her protest against "don't ask don't tell" is just anti-LGTB bigotry. Just more "conservative" and "Republican" bigotry.

Be ready to wade into it in a righteous way.

I wonder who will point out that if she is a lesbian, her actions at Harvard point out how that is corrupting her politics?

Any brave souls?

131 posted on 05/10/2010 10:08:42 AM PDT by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRPerry

she also looks a little like Tom Arnold in that pic


132 posted on 05/10/2010 10:35:47 AM PDT by tina07 (In loving memory of my father,WWII Vet. CBI 10/16/42-12/17/45, d. 11/1/85 -Happy B'day Daddy 2/20/23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Not a single republican should vote for this... I predict at least 15 rino senators cave in and vote yes.

You won't hear a peep out of Graham-nesty or McMainiac.
133 posted on 05/10/2010 11:30:42 AM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All

http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/10/kagan_vague_on_executive_power

Kagan vague on executive power

Both sides dissatisfied with her past comments.

When it comes to executive privilege, neither side wants to claim Elena Kagan’s views.


134 posted on 05/10/2010 11:49:24 AM PDT by OafOfOffice (W.C:Socialism:Philosophy of failure,creed of ignorance,gospel of envy,the equal sharing of misery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
graham will vote her out of committee... bank on it.

LLSA

135 posted on 05/10/2010 11:59:18 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ( WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: All

Twitter tweets on Kagan. Goldman sachs is the magic word of the day.

Kagan was on the advisory council for Goldman Sachs from 2005 to 2008!

Human Rights Campaign Praises President Obama’s Nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court http://ff.im/-k7K2z

Elena Kagan Nominated for Supreme Court - Senators pledged to scrutinize Solicitor General Elena Kaga... http://ow.ly/17kiV3

Supreme Irony - Kagan Nomination Ends Gay Marriage Hopes-”There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Breaking News: Steele attacks Kagan over Marshall comment http://j.mp/bUVqRz

KAGAN.. Hopefully I shant have to learn to spell the name.. I keep thinking of this other word.. Pagan

Sestak seizes on Specter past vote against Kagan http://bit.ly/aMqzQ9

Top Republican: Summer vote for Kagan doable http://bit.ly/brdgHf

Senate Republicans Target Kagan Lack of Judicial Experience (CQPolitics.com): http://bit.ly/awuESq

Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick http://bit.ly/cR0iKr

WSJ: Four ways the GOP might attack Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan http://on.wsj.com/bHWAhY

Calls to out Elena Kagan are forgetting about 220 years of heterosexism on the Supreme Court: http://bit.ly/ddj6l0

Kagan rapid ascent to nomination (AP)http://bit.ly/cYUzOy


136 posted on 05/10/2010 12:05:27 PM PDT by OafOfOffice (W.C:Socialism:Philosophy of failure,creed of ignorance,gospel of envy,the equal sharing of misery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cameraeye

Do you know how many of the present justices were not ever judges? Were any of them?


137 posted on 05/10/2010 12:06:02 PM PDT by DallasSun (i believe in separation of church and hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
I mute him immediately.

I changed to a local channel when The Kenyan started to speak.....good timing, as I discovered that there is a hostage situation on a street I drive along on my way to work!

Thanks, Zero.

138 posted on 05/10/2010 12:14:16 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/01...NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kabar

And, Kagan will help with the lesbian and transgendered vote. It’s time that the Supreme Court had “Napolitanitanesque” representation! Bob


139 posted on 05/10/2010 12:25:49 PM PDT by alstewartfan (I "I woke with the frost, and noticed she'd lost the veil that covered her eyes." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

I can’t watch this vacuous child either. Bob


140 posted on 05/10/2010 12:34:10 PM PDT by alstewartfan (IAn original thought would be such a rush. Why do they feed you a diet of man-made mush?" Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; ETL

Thanks for the ping.

This traitor to our Constitution needs to be stopped in committee.


141 posted on 05/10/2010 12:58:31 PM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

I am going to assume that the Democrat strategy is to nominate someone for the Republicans to criticize, then withdraw that nomination and nominate someone who appears to be less socialist, but who is and who Obama really wanted in the 1st place.

I assume the strategy here is to nominate Kagan and let the Republicans expend all of their rapid opposition on her. Then Obama withdraws her name from nomination, citing that he disires bipartisan cooperation, even though he has the Senate and could install Kagan on the court.

Then he nominates who he really wanted all along, now that the Republicans have shot their wad opposing Kagan. If they oppose nominee #2, the media will brand them as nothing but obstructionist. So the Republicans will ultimately cave in and allow nominee #2 so they don’t look mean.

Meanwhile, Obama gets his 1st choice for SCOTUS with nominee #2. The ace in the hole is to select the right cannon fodder in case the Repulicans cave on nominee #1. So Kagan is someone Obama can live with, but his preferred nominee will come next, after having Kagan withdraw her name for family reasons or some such.


142 posted on 05/10/2010 1:03:53 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Bye bye Miss American Freedom. When did we vote for Communism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Guilty - he or she or whatever is most definitely guilty.

How about Megyn Kelly instead? She has never been judge before either. But she is not guilty.


143 posted on 05/10/2010 1:51:20 PM PDT by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle

EXTREMELY not guilty.


144 posted on 05/10/2010 1:55:16 PM PDT by jessduntno (Kagan...Fili-bust her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
re: She looks like a butch Mama Cass.

LOL

145 posted on 05/10/2010 1:56:37 PM PDT by ICAB9USA (I cut off part of my middle finger .......... it almost rendered me mute. -- Rahm Emanuel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ETL

That is pretty damn HEAVY. Thanks for the post!


146 posted on 05/10/2010 2:01:15 PM PDT by ICAB9USA (I cut off part of my middle finger .......... it almost rendered me mute. -- Rahm Emanuel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Why are all liberal lesbians lacking in the looks dept and look like men?


147 posted on 05/10/2010 2:08:51 PM PDT by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

She’s no socialist...you gonna believe your own lying eyes?


148 posted on 05/10/2010 2:11:35 PM PDT by jessduntno (Kagan...Fili-bust her. Bork her. Bork her hard. She needs it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“One of the foremost legal scholars in the country. Supremely qualified,” said White House senior adviser David Axelrod.

Kagan had never argued a case in her life before winning confirmation last year as solicitor general, a job for which Kagan now argues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the U.S. government.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, adding that Kagan would bring a “diversity of experience” to the Supreme Court.

“I am particularly pleased President Obama has chosen a nominee from outside the judicial monastery,” added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/kagans-judicial-inexperience-minor-hurdle-despite-early-criticism/

hahaha...its unbelievable what a law degree but never arguing a case prior to being a solicitor general, sucking up to your liberal buddies,...can eventually get you.

And our republican fungus reps in congress will roll over like a bloodhound stretching out in the sun on a Mississippi porch.


149 posted on 05/10/2010 2:31:59 PM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?" "Because it's judgment that defeats us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
Not a single republican should vote for this... I predict at least 15 rino senators cave in and vote yes.

If any vote Yes and they're up for reelection come November it's an automatic defeat. Might as well not even run if you vote Yes. . .

150 posted on 05/10/2010 2:32:08 PM PDT by Art in Idaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 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