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

Skip to comments.

Army Judge Axes Obama Birth Record Request
KITV Honolulu ^ | 09/03/2010

Posted on 09/07/2010 3:55:45 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta

A military judge in Maryland has ruled that President Barack Obama's birth certificate is irrelevant in the case of an Army doctor charged with disobeying deployment orders because he doubts Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief.

(Excerpt) Read more at kitv.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: army4obama; army4soa; army4treason; armyinlockstep; armykangaroocourt; armyvsamerica; armyvsconstitution; armyvsthelaw; armyvsthepeople; armyvsthetruth; birthcertificate; canttrustarmy; certifigate; kangaroocourt; naturalborncitizen; nobc; nobirthcertificate; nointegrity; notruth; obama

1 posted on 09/07/2010 3:55:52 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Then drop the charges and give him an honorable discharge.


2 posted on 09/07/2010 3:57:03 PM PDT by omega4179 (**christine2010.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Ok you legal eagles ... does this set up an automatic appeal?


3 posted on 09/07/2010 3:57:36 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

This crap has been done during Bush’s term too “Illegal war...stole the election” etc etc.


4 posted on 09/07/2010 3:58:39 PM PDT by mainsail that ("A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights" - Napoleon Bonaparte)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

How about a few years in Leavenworth breaking rocks?


5 posted on 09/07/2010 3:58:55 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Obama knows he is a one termer. He will do as much damage as he can. He is a little communist twerp.


6 posted on 09/07/2010 3:59:34 PM PDT by screaminsunshine (m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

She basically said, “Pick another defense.” A career court martial isn’t like ordering an ice cream cone, where if they’re out of one flavor, you can pick another. This is beyond half-assed.

She didn’t say it was an invalid defense and provide reasoning; nor did she say he didn’t have standing. She just said he should pick another defense because his request could prove embarassing to the Won. Totally banana republic.


7 posted on 09/07/2010 3:59:44 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

How about this guy is standing up for The Constitution while idiots are watching reality TV and ball games while drinking beer and shoving corn cobs up their a*se.


8 posted on 09/07/2010 4:01:38 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

You can argue that the civilian system failed him. He has is orders.


9 posted on 09/07/2010 4:02:53 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

is = his


10 posted on 09/07/2010 4:03:25 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Ok you legal eagles ... does this set up an automatic appeal?

I was never a military lawyer so I don't know. In the civilian world it would not because it would be considered an interim ruling. A appeal of this issue would have to be part of an appeal of a final verdict.

Again in the civilian world, Lakin could go for a special writ with an appellate court to consider this issue now, but those are rarely granted. I don't know if military courts do those kinds of things.

11 posted on 09/07/2010 4:04:39 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Can Obama afford politically to do nothing to remedy the situation and let an otherwise exemplary servant of his country’s flag be punished?


12 posted on 09/07/2010 4:06:53 PM PDT by Genoa (Titus 2:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Did Obama axe the judge to axe it?


13 posted on 09/07/2010 4:09:36 PM PDT by Zeppelin (Keep on FReepin' on...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

The Constitution is irrelevant?

Cowards. Make a determination instead of passing the buck. He’s ineligible and you know it.


14 posted on 09/07/2010 4:10:31 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (NO MOS-que AP: It's the "GROUND ZERO MOSQUE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Well keep celebrating Gomer cause the US military, intel, cia, nsa, and govt are stuff with muslims and muslims sympathizers leaking intel back to the taliban and al qeada on how to improve the effectiveness of killing American soliders.

The brass at the Pentagon are pathetic cowards.

You lost your country back on Nov 2008.


15 posted on 09/07/2010 4:11:14 PM PDT by Frantzie (Imam Ob*m* & Democrats support the VICTORY MOSQUE & TV supports Imam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker; taxcontrol
"Again in the civilian world, Lakin could go for a special writ with an appellate court to consider this issue now, but those are rarely granted. I don't know if military courts do those kinds of things. "

They (interlocutory appeals) do exist in the military court system, but not with these sets of facts and circumstances. I won't bore you with the particulars, but his chances of prevailing with an extraordinary writ are virtually zero. For a variety of reasons, the appellate court will have to deny the interlocutory appeal. But, it is a point that Lakin's team can raise when he files his first appeal to CMA.

Having said that, his chances of prevailing on appeal to CMA and then to CAAF are close to zero, at least with respect to this particular judicial ruling. The MJ really had no choice. The existing case law, as she cited, binds her thoroughly, as it will bind the appellate courts.

16 posted on 09/07/2010 4:12:23 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
You lost your country back on Nov 2008.

Have you told the folks on this website? Especially the ones who believe Bush = Obama?

17 posted on 09/07/2010 4:15:36 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

ping


18 posted on 09/07/2010 4:19:20 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Ok you legal eagles ... does this set up an automatic appeal?

No. The ruling is on pretty conventional legal ground. Presuming that Lakin is convicted, however, he is almost certain to choose an appeal.

19 posted on 09/07/2010 4:19:32 PM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

Frantzie, the brass & saboteurs are in on it, but there are still 1000s of men and women in the service, of ‘varying kinds,’ who are stand up guys and won’t go down without a fight.

We are in G-war.


20 posted on 09/07/2010 4:20:17 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
The sole purpose of ruling that the question of Obama's citzenship status is irrelevant is to avoid giving the defense the power to subpoena Obama. That makes it STUNNINGLY obvious that Obama lacks the documentation proving his eligibility.

Obama clearly does not meet the Constutitional requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen—because his father was not a US citizen. By the time Obama leaves office, he will be so unpopular that the elite will find it impossible to prevent disclosure of the fact that he's not even a citizen of any sort. That revelation will be far more damaging, because it requires far less sophistication to understand it.

21 posted on 09/07/2010 4:25:45 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

In the meantime treason is much more important to these people, and must go on.


22 posted on 09/07/2010 4:44:54 PM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
ie "He has no reasonable expectation that the CiC be legitimate." /s

None of us do apparently.

23 posted on 09/07/2010 4:47:30 PM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

I predict massive trials for Treason, with millions convicted and executed.


24 posted on 09/07/2010 4:59:25 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tired_old_conservative

What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.) Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?


25 posted on 09/07/2010 5:03:19 PM PDT by satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

“Obama clearly does not meet the Constutitional requirement to be a Natural Born Citizen...”

I think you have a point, however, Courts seem to take the position that the Congress determined that he is qualified.

If we disagree with Congress’ determination that he was eligible, Congress has to make that determiantion as well.


26 posted on 09/07/2010 5:03:47 PM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
The smoking gun is the feeble effort to 'bamboozle' America with the phony birth document (Certification of Live Birth) he put up on his web site. That should have brought an FBI visit for forging a birth certificate.

The Certification of Live Birth form is not definitive.

He and his administration think Americans are idiots. They know that you are waiting for the piss-stream media to tell the truth but it ain't ever going to happen.

WAKE UP AMERICA



Where's the original Certificate of Live Birth, Mr. President?


27 posted on 09/07/2010 5:07:57 PM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The judge sure is afraid what the birth certificate might reveal. There is so much we do not know about our president. He could easily put a stop to the arguments, but he will not do it. Why? Because he would lose?

Even some liberals are getting nervous. One of them said that the article "The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues" by Steve Baldwin caused him to have second thoughts.

28 posted on 09/07/2010 5:08:09 PM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: satan
"What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.)

Remember, in a court-martial, it only takes two thirds to convict, not a unanimous decision like in the civilian world. You have a better chance of being crowned king or queen of England, than Lakin has at trial.

Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?"

Whatever "it" means, "it" is the reason why at least three 0-6's are going to vote to convict. You see, Lakin will be tried by a jury of his peers, that means 0-6 or above - the very people that have the most invested in order and discipline. If Lakin doesn't have to obey the orders of his command, then their own subordinates don't have to obey their orders. Field and general grade office don't often invite chaos into the ranks. It's for this reason that I think there's a reasonable chance Lakin will really get punished at sentencing. I don't think he'll get more than 6-months confinement, but that possibility does exist.

It's my personal experience that jury panes - especially field-grade jury panels are VERY tough on the accused when one of the charges is Failure to Obey.

29 posted on 09/07/2010 5:19:25 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

The judge should be thrown off the bench for making a ruling like that. No case would go to trial if we couldn’t embarrass somebody. Is this doctor going to go to prison just because the judges doesn’t want to embarrass Obama? Millions of Americans are already embarrassed by having this joke as their president.


30 posted on 09/07/2010 5:19:41 PM PDT by peeps36 (Obama, The Worst President In American History, By Far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
Then drop the charges and give him an honorable discharge.

Keeping the charges and a couple of years in Leavenworth are more likely.

31 posted on 09/07/2010 5:20:24 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
...nor did she say he didn’t have standing.

"Standing" is a term used in civil court and applies to a person's right to sue. Lakin is charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ and is facing several years in Leavenworth when convicted. The last thing he needs to worry about is 'standing'.

She just said he should pick another defense because his request could prove embarassing to the Won.

So have you actually read the decision?

32 posted on 09/07/2010 5:25:29 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
"She didn’t say it was an invalid defense and provide reasoning; nor did she say he didn’t have standing. She just said he should pick another defense because his request could prove embarassing to the Won. Totally banana republic."

She did say it's an invalid defense. That's the point.

33 posted on 09/07/2010 5:32:07 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
"The Constitution is irrelevant?"

No it isn't. And that's the problem birthers have. All these cases want courts to set aside the constitutional provisions governing presidential election and just give them what they want. Birthers are attacking the constitution.

34 posted on 09/07/2010 5:34:48 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

Congress has to make that determiantion as well.

So does that mean if the House and Senate are won by the Republicans in November that they could, with a majority, demand a copy of the BC or find him ineligible due to his dual citizenship?


35 posted on 09/07/2010 5:38:54 PM PDT by Bluebeard16
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bluebeard16
"So does that mean if the House and Senate are won by the Republicans in November that they could, with a majority, demand a copy of the BC or find him ineligible due to his dual citizenship?"

They could hold hearings, and their power to subpoena is VERY generous and broad. So yes, they could get their hands on his birth records, probably.

But, the principle of judicial review continues to lay with - well - the Judiciary. It's the provenance of the Judiciary to interpret and define Constitutional terms, not the Congress. So, if Natural Born is going to be interpreted to mean a specific "thing", it will be the judiciary that will be the final arbiter of that interpretation.

36 posted on 09/07/2010 5:46:31 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

The whole point of having courts is to provide an inpedendent review of the legality and propriety of the actions of the other two branches of government. If they refuse to their job, then they are nullifying the purpose and utility of the separation of powers.

Deliberately sabotaging the Constitution and the fundamental principles of operation of the government it establishes is Treason.


37 posted on 09/07/2010 6:36:55 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
"The whole point of having courts is to provide an inpedendent review of the legality and propriety of the actions of the other two branches of government. If they refuse to their job, then they are nullifying the purpose and utility of the separation of powers."

The Court reviews what it has provenance to review. The political question doctrine - as defined by Felix Frankfurter - has been a long-held principle established in 1849.

There were many cases that turned on this very principle during Vietnam, and more during the first Gulf War and then later in these two latest conflicts where service members refused orders because they believed the actions of the President to be "unconstitutional". The Court - rightly - said, "no sale", and did not allow the defense when it was asserted for violating Article 92, and other Articles

It's not the prerogative of the military to question the political process. Electing and installing a President is as much a political process, as it is a legal process, nor is it the Constitutional prerogative of the military to inspect the credentials of the President. That is a job that is laid expressly at the feet of the Electoral College and the Congress,not the military.

Lind ruled the only way she could. She'll easily be affirmed on appeal.

38 posted on 09/07/2010 7:13:29 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

This is my hope. I just wonder what it will take to reveal all this.


39 posted on 09/07/2010 7:19:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

>> How about a few years in Leavenworth breaking rocks?

Who, Lakin or the CIC who refuses to show a $12 document?


40 posted on 09/07/2010 7:24:00 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

Congress is the perp, the judge, the jury and the arresting LEO?

Fortunately, it will be a very different Congress after the first part of November.


41 posted on 09/07/2010 7:25:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
The Court reviews what it has provenance to review. The political question doctrine - as defined by Felix Frankfurter - has been a long-held principle established in 1849.

That doctrine violates the very explicit intent of the Constitution. By its logic, courts could never challenge the decisions and acts of any legislature or chief exectuive, ALL of whose decisions are fundamentally political. It amounts to judges arbitrarily deciding that they will shirk their dirty when invalidating SOME political decisions, but not others. Not only is it shockingly hypocritical, it's Treason.

42 posted on 09/07/2010 7:52:19 PM PDT by sourcery (United We Stand, Divided We Fall: You have to give in order to get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
"That doctrine violates the very explicit intent of the Constitution."

Explicit intent? Find for me the passage in the Constitution that explicitly reference "judicial review". Here's a hint - it's not there. The concept of judicial review was created out of whole-cloth by a guy names John Marshall writing the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

Later Courts - rightly - recognizing the limitations of their scope or power to review, have left to other branches of government certain tasks or procedures that are not dependent on Judicial intervention - the political question doctrine is one such example. We don't want judges deciding that a President - one that was properly elected, properly certified per the Constitution deciding that he's no longer the President. That's NOT what the Framers envisioned. Examining a President after he's been inaugurated is expressly left SOLELY to the Congress per the Constitution and the Judiciary plays NO ROLE in that process (see: Art II, Sec 4)

43 posted on 09/07/2010 8:05:18 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: satan
What if he is found not guilty? (I would vote not guilty.) Does that mean nobody has to obey orders?

I think it's a moot point. He has been charged with an act, missing movement, that he has admitted to in multiple media. I know people here want to believe he has a justifiable reason, but no military court is going to accept that. So he's going to be found guilty.

It's an interesting point you raise, however. By Lakin's theory, any order he himself has given since Obama was inaugurated has been unlawful. It's basically self-negation of the armed services, which are established and set up to preclude that outcome, as the judge explained to Lakin's attorney. Non-sequitur is right--whatever one thinks of Lakin's cause, he has chosen the wrong vehicle to try and advance it.

44 posted on 09/08/2010 1:30:38 AM PDT by tired_old_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Oh really? I can count on the fingers of one hand (not including thumbs) the number of GOPers who’ve even touched the eligibility issue. I don’t need any fingers to count the number that have stuck with it rather than backing down like cowards.

The GOP is just as indifferent to the Constitution as the dems.


45 posted on 09/08/2010 4:25:14 AM PDT by IntolerantOfTreason (The AMERICAN President should be an AMERICAN, NOT an AFRICAN-American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: IntolerantOfTreason

Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

I am hoping new blood will have some courage.


46 posted on 09/08/2010 7:51:35 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BobP

The smoking gun is the feeble effort to ‘bamboozle’ America with the phony birth document (Certification of Live Birth) he put up on his web site. That should have brought an FBI visit for forging a birth certificate.
The Certification of Live Birth form is not definitive.

He and his administration think Americans are idiots. They know that you are waiting for the piss-stream media to tell the truth but it ain’t ever going to happen.

WAKE UP AMERICA


The Republican Governor of Hawaii and the Republican Attorney General of Hawaii have verified Obama’s birth records through the appointed officials of the Governor’s administration.

The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since 2001 and that document contains all the information necessary to establish Article 2, Section 1 birth status.

There is no additional information on a long form Certificate of Live Birth that is relevant to establishing Article 2, Section 1 eligibility. The Constitution does not ask who the birth doctor was or what the child’s parents’ occupations are or how long the newborn was at birth or what the newborn weighed. The Constitution requires a certified document authenticating place of birth and date of birth, ONLY.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the ORIGINAL vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health VERIFYING Barack Hussein Obama was BORN IN HAWAII and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009

The scanned image of the front side of a birth record on a website is legally irrelevant. If a subpoena is ever issued for Obama’s birth records, it will be a certified copy of the COLB that comes directly from the Hawaii Department of Health with notarized statements of authenticity or deposed testimony taken under oath from the Registrar of Vital Statistics and the Director of Health.


“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor of Hawaii Linda Lingle(R)


47 posted on 09/08/2010 9:27:28 AM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Hope can’t fly in the face of facts; make sure that whoever you vote for is willing to take this on before you cast your vote. Either write and ask them, or see if they’ve taken it on themselves in the media without prompting. Don’t just blindly vote GOP like so many useful idiots who think they’re voting for a conservative party. Good luck!


48 posted on 09/08/2010 10:35:24 AM PDT by IntolerantOfTreason (The AMERICAN President should be an AMERICAN, NOT an AFRICAN-American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: IntolerantOfTreason

In my state Art Robinson is running against DeFazio, who’s running for his twentieth something term.

Robinson is a staunch conservative, businessman, homeschooled his children, wrote a homeschool cirriculum - I hope he wins. In my county (where he lives) I see tons of signs and bumper stickers for him. I’m glad to be able to vote for a real conservative.


49 posted on 09/08/2010 10:41:28 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bluebeard16
“So does that mean if the House and Senate are won by the Republicans in November that they could, with a majority, demand a copy of the BC or find him ineligible due to his dual citizenship?

They probably could get there, if they have the political will to do it.

I assume there could be committee investigations into some issue that would have made the issue relevant and then subpoena the Hawaii documents, or perhaps the selective service or state department (passport) records.

unfortunately, they may decide that the benefit does not outweigh the costs.

50 posted on 09/08/2010 7:37:30 PM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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