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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, (California) State Vote Aside
NY TImes ^ | 10/15/10 | Adam Nagourny

Posted on 10/16/2010 6:50:39 PM PDT by Bokababe

LOS ANGELES — The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; california; commerce; commerceclause; ericholder; legalizeharddrugs; libertarians; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; menotlikehelmetlaws; prop19; statesrights; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
Regardless of your opinion of marijuana legalization, if this passes -- and it looks like it will -- this could be one of those few times (along with the water issue) Liberal California will have a real State's Rights vs Federal Government fight. And more people across the State personally care about marijuana legalization than they do about water to the San Joaquin Valley. "Obama vs California" will be a real trip!
1 posted on 10/16/2010 6:50:43 PM PDT by Bokababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; bamahead; djsherin; rabscuttle385; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; AuntB; EveningStar; ...

State’s Rights Ping!


2 posted on 10/16/2010 6:51:40 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

And for that reason alone, I will be voting for it. I was going to vote against it or leave it alone, but when Holder opened his commie mouth, that was it.


3 posted on 10/16/2010 6:53:51 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (Defund, repeal, investigate, impeach, convict, jail, celebrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
"Obama vs California" will be a real trip!

Lol. "A real trip!" That's a good one.

4 posted on 10/16/2010 6:54:18 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I don’t agree with the new law, but I don’t agree with the feds even more. It appears that I - as a science geek - appear to understand the constitution more than the complete idiot septic tank dwellers in DC.

It’s time for a revolution, folks.

I won’t ask, or tell - if you just say no.


5 posted on 10/16/2010 6:54:33 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I guess the Feds are looking for a piece of tax pie in the event 19 passes—right now revenue only goes to the state right? Can’t have that so it will be legal when they tell you it will be legal


6 posted on 10/16/2010 7:00:59 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?


7 posted on 10/16/2010 7:01:07 PM PDT by I_Like_Spam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
If marijuana is legalized here and the Feds ignore the State Law & continue to prosecute, every Democrat in the State will be in the hot seat as to what side they are on -- Obama's or California's?

Marijuana legalization is a very big pile of doodoo for the Democrats and they just don't know it yet!

8 posted on 10/16/2010 7:05:52 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

“....And for that reason alone, I will be voting for it.....”

Ever heard of reverse psychology? The Dems aren’t beyond using that to stir the Ire of the Sheeple, and cause them to vote the way they want them to.

Voting NO on #19 is still the best bet for California.


9 posted on 10/16/2010 7:07:35 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Agreed that it should be a state's rights issue.

That said I'm totally opposed to the legalization of drugs.

On another board someone posted...(excerpted)

I have yet to see/hear of anyone dying from smoking marijuana

It isn't what they do to themselves, it's what they do to innocents.

Witnesses told Officer Smakosz they saw Mr. Cope hit Ms. Styles, 36, and then back over her again. The officer arrived to find Ms. Styles bleeding profusely and her children screaming but unharmed.

Toxicology results revealed Mr. Cope had marijuana in his system at the time of the crash. Officers said they smelled the odor of the drug in his vehicle.

The doper later admitted to smoking (and using other drugs but it had to be the "other drugs" right?).

DUIs? Same thing. Let's compound the problem by letting dopers get their fix and kill people like Lisa Clay Styles.

10 posted on 10/16/2010 7:07:38 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Right Wing Nuts are holding The Constitution together as the Loose Screws of The Left come undone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Unfortunately, the battle was already fought and lost. The US Supreme Court has already ruled the federal government can enforce its laws against marijuana regardless of state law. I think Clarence Thomas has it right (he argued that medical marijuana had nothing to do with interstate commerce).


11 posted on 10/16/2010 7:08:23 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Unfortunately, the battle was already fought and lost. The US Supreme Court has already ruled the federal government can enforce its laws against marijuana regardless of state law. I think Clarence Thomas has it right (he argued that medical marijuana had nothing to do with interstate commerce).

If California bars all CA police officers for providing any cooperation with federal authorities on this matter, regardless of any "grant" the feds might offer to buy cooperation, then the feds will have a hard time enforcing the law. If California combines that with a vigorous "jury nullification" education program, then the feds will really be in trouble.

12 posted on 10/16/2010 7:14:09 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Marijuana was made illegal on false pretenses in order to support the huge bureacracy formed by prohibition. Yes it could be reverse psychology but I think it is more about control, and now that Holder, who was probably a doper himself in school, has power he doesn’t want to give up any of it.

Obama and gang are NOT libertarians, just the opposite, they are fascists.


13 posted on 10/16/2010 7:14:13 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (Defund, repeal, investigate, impeach, convict, jail, celebrate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: funfan

I wonder how many attorneys would instantly go on social services if pot was legalized nationwide? There’s a lot of money in keeping it illegal.


14 posted on 10/16/2010 7:21:07 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Is this a ploy to get all mj users to vote D
whether they be Republican or whatever.


15 posted on 10/16/2010 7:28:42 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (demonicRATS= Obama's Mosque, taxes, painful death. Is this what you want?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam

“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”

And likewise Cocaine and LSD, both of which were once “legal.”

(asking not because I think it wise to use either, but rather for the legal constitutional aspect)


16 posted on 10/16/2010 7:35:53 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Boxer and Brown must be really pissed!


17 posted on 10/16/2010 7:36:01 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (The only thing the ZerO administration is competent at is bad ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Same goes for Republicans. The CA GOP talks a good game, but it remains to be seen whether they will stay true to their stated constitutional position, or turn into Drug War whores. From the CA GOP website:

Federalism

We believe that political matters should be resolved by the local or state governments unless such matters are expressly reserved for the Federal Government by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Federal Government has repeatedly violated the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by encroaching on the rights that are reserved and delegated to the states and to the People. The California Republican Party firmly believes that the best governments are those most accountable to the People.

We heed Thomas Jefferson's warning: "When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another."

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/republican_party_platform.htm

18 posted on 10/16/2010 7:38:10 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I doubt the nimber of people using marijuana will change much, whether legal or illegal.

It has been illegal for decades, yet many have used it.

The penalty has been greatly relaxed in several states, without reports of increased use.


19 posted on 10/16/2010 7:40:47 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt; 2001convSVT; 2ndDivisionVet; A_Former_Democrat; A_Tradition_Continues; ...
Thanks Bokababe!

I'm curious if anyone on this forum has had any experience with the situation in the Netherlands where "soft" drugs are more or less legal? Even doing a Google search for "Netherlands drug problem" doesn't shed much light. Seems most of the chatter is yukking it up for legalization.

~ping~ for purposes of discussion...

20 posted on 10/16/2010 7:41:28 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06
Boxer and Brown must be really pissed!

Why? They both are on record as being against prop 19, as is the dem who is running for Attorney General (Kamalla Harris?).

21 posted on 10/16/2010 7:42:27 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

If they legalized it they could tax the hell out of the users. D’s love taxing people.


22 posted on 10/16/2010 7:44:02 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (demonicRATS= Obama's Mosque, taxes, painful death. Is this what you want?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I don’t have a problem with drug laws as long as they are products of the state. I don’t believe that the constitution grants the Feds authority to regulate narcotics (or much of anything else) as the commerce clause meant to simply normalize trade within the Union so states could no longer form trade cartels and have trade wars with each other.

For those who aren’t aware, the Cruikshank case (along with the slauterhouse cases) started the ball rolling toward weaking the original meaning of the commerce clause. The Grant administration had attempted to use martial law and other forms of Federal law to prosecute violators of the civil rights laws. These laws were struck down in Cruikshank. In the decision, it was suggested that the government should use the commerce clause to get what it wanted rather than the criminal code. Meanwhile, Cruikshank, who killed at least 27 negros in cold blood went free.


23 posted on 10/16/2010 7:46:53 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
The penalty has been greatly relaxed in several states, without reports of increased use.

I believe employment-based drug testing has done more to curb illicit drug use in America than fear of criminal convictions ever did.

24 posted on 10/16/2010 7:50:55 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

This is a state’s rights issue. If the people of California want to legalize marijuana, or cocaine for that matter, it should be their right to do so. States should be able to do stupid things as well as smart ones. This will be in the former category.

It’ll be interesting to see if California makes an interstate commerce issue of it when mj is legalized.


25 posted on 10/16/2010 7:51:32 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

You got it, democrats and pot go together incredibly well. To support one is to support the other. To bash one is to bash the other. They take that very seriously.


26 posted on 10/16/2010 7:52:56 PM PDT by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

“I’m curious if anyone on this forum has had any experience with the situation in the Netherlands”

I don’t know about the Netherlands, but if you do a google search on Portugal you can see their experience with legalization. They offer non-mandatory counseling/rehab instead of jail sentences. I can’t remember the details but awhile back someone posted an article about Portugal and apparently the use of drugs has not significantly increased since the new policy.


27 posted on 10/16/2010 7:57:40 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Not sure about the Netherlands, FGS, but Portugal decriminalized drugs — with some surprising success. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization


28 posted on 10/16/2010 7:59:10 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam

“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”

I have asked that question repeatedly in the past and one of the few answers I got was that they didn’t really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).

When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930’s and were subsequently passed again after FDR threatened to increase the number of SC justices to 15 so he could pack it with yes-men, they have no answer other than the SC never declared it unconstitutional.


29 posted on 10/16/2010 8:00:20 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
The Democrats have used marijuana and "gay rights" as "their issues."

But within the last few days, the Obama Admin has said that they are going to ignore State's rights if California legalizes pot AND Holder is going to file an appeal to the judge's ruling in Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In short, the Obama Admin is undermining their own Democratic supporters -- and if they go after marijuana prosecution if CA legalizes, they are going to lose them big time!

This is the place where Liberty (libertarian-leaning) Republicans can clean up if they are smart.

30 posted on 10/16/2010 8:08:06 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Yes, if they are smart. I’m not holding my breath.


31 posted on 10/16/2010 8:13:08 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (demonicRATS= Obama's Mosque, taxes, painful death. Is this what you want?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Let me try to open your mind a bit: Imagine how many federal and state laws would be unnecessary and how many drug dealers would be put out of business if recreational drug use was decriminalized.

When was there a turf war over the sale of alcohol? Probably just before Prohibition was repealed.

Who benefits most from making drugs illegal?
1. Politicians who are in favor of a totalitarian government because it gives them more excuses to snoop on you and imprison you.

2. The various law enforcement agencies because they need a bigger budget to chase people who break the drug laws (plus they get to grow their little kingdoms with money taken from SUSPECTED drug activity)

3. Drug dealers. The higher the penalties and the more police enforcement, the more they can charge for their drugs.

Who benefits least? The people who have their rights invaded by the government and their safety destroyed by dealers fighting over turf.

So before you say that drug laws are necessary to help keep order to society -—— “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. “ William Pitt the Younger


32 posted on 10/16/2010 8:17:34 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

In Belgium, the way it *used* to be (when I was in my teens and twenties, but I’ve never been to Belgium) it was legal to sell pot, but illegal to advertise it at the point of sale. The sign had to be some number of meters (probably ten? fifteen?) from the seller, so in the outdoor concerts the guy wearing the sign would walk that much ahead of the guy with the weed, and the sign would say something to the effect that the other guy had the stuff for sale. ;’)


33 posted on 10/16/2010 8:19:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
Tax it the way the do tobacco and watch the users get jumpin' ugly, hehehehe!

Did they get that way over taxes on alcohol and tobaccy? I think not.

34 posted on 10/16/2010 8:20:16 PM PDT by prisoner6 (Right Wing Nuts are holding The Constitution together as the Loose Screws of The Left come undone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
In Portugal they didn't legalize drugs, they just don't send you to jail anymore. If you get caught you still have to go to the "drug aversion committee" who can fine you, help you get treatment or cut you lose.
35 posted on 10/16/2010 8:51:51 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: webstersII; ForGod'sSake

I remember that post. It just so happens I lived in Spain during the early 1980s when that nation decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use.

The result was a crime wave.


36 posted on 10/16/2010 8:54:04 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Thanks Bokababe. It's similar to most other articles I find about the Netherlands. All upside and no downside. Makes me a bit skeptical when I can find very little about any problems that may have arisen from legalization.

In any case I think the legalization question should be left up to the states under their "policing" powers and not the federales. I just don't see how the Constitution gives them that authority. Possibly under their taxing authority they can discourage behavior not conducive to a sober society, but that may even be a stretch.

37 posted on 10/16/2010 8:55:33 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; webstersII

Several posts now have shown me how little I know about drug laws in Europe. I wasn’t aware the “experiment” was been so widespread. Aside from the moral issue though the question is, does the feral government have the authority under our unique Constitution to implement such laws? Or for that matter, do the current set of drug laws, along with so many others(for our own good of course), pass Constitutional muster?


38 posted on 10/16/2010 9:09:25 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6

“It isn’t what they do to themselves, it’s what they do to innocents.”

Quite right, I have personally been the victim of a nutjob pothead. Also have seen serious child neglect from it.

California’s prop. 19 does not set a statutory limit for being under the influence, so, you can be high as a kite and still be watching the kiddies. At least alcohol has a limit, beyond which you are considered “under the influence.” They kids can be protected as well as other motorists, etc.


39 posted on 10/16/2010 9:09:56 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

“This is a state’s rights issue. If the people of California want to legalize marijuana, or cocaine for that matter, it should be their right to do so. States should be able to do stupid things as well as smart ones. This will be in the former category.”

Good point. But the federal regime doesn’t see it that way. The see it as interstate commerce and want to regulate it. After all, if pot was grown in Central America it should not only be tariff’d but regulated as well.

What they’re really pissed off about is that it can be grown locally. Then they would have no puppet strings to pull.


40 posted on 10/16/2010 9:33:09 PM PDT by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
"Obama vs California" will be a real trip!

I find this real ironic considering how the Kenyan sued AZ for enforcing his FED LAWS.
41 posted on 10/16/2010 9:55:13 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Curious: a state with such a crusade against tobacco smoking is set to allow the smoking of marijuana — something that’s 10-20 times more potent than tobacco? California is a funny place.


42 posted on 10/16/2010 10:01:32 PM PDT by alancarp (Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

in California, possession of pot,
is no longer a crime


43 posted on 10/16/2010 10:20:43 PM PDT by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

It won’t pass. Not yet, anyway...


44 posted on 10/17/2010 1:21:17 AM PDT by freebilly (No wonder the left has a boner for Obama. There's CIALIS in soCIALISt....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”

I have asked that question repeatedly in the past and one of the few answers I got was that they didn’t really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).


Actually, the given reason is that an amendment is much harder to repeal and they wanted it to stick.

When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930’s...

Cite?
45 posted on 10/17/2010 1:44:54 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
They already lost this fight in 2005, Gonzalez vs Raich.

Justice Thomas got that one right:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.... If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
46 posted on 10/17/2010 1:49:54 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Any bets the public smoking ban will be lifted next?,it’s why it came into play in the first place.


47 posted on 10/17/2010 4:18:30 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

Are you concerned that after voting to legalize marijuana, the next initiative will be to legalize cocaine? PCP? Crack? Meth?

If the issue was in TX, I’d vote no. And it wouldn’t be about threats from Obama’s Dept of Unjustice either. It would be because overall, I don’t believe legalization of this drug benefits society and our children.

Since I’m not in CA, I’ll be watching with interest, but I hope it’s voted down.


48 posted on 10/17/2010 5:13:24 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (The Professional Left: Using Your Money to Promote Their Ideology Since the 1930's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Its good to be the king.


49 posted on 10/17/2010 5:24:50 AM PDT by Delta 21 (If you cant tell if I'm being sarcastic...maybe I'm not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I do not support legalization of marijuana, but I would like to see the same energy and resources applied to secure our southern border.


50 posted on 10/17/2010 5:38:24 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 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