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

Skip to comments.

Lawsuit Filed in Okla. Against Islamic Law Ban
New Yortk Times ^ | November 4, 2010 | AP

Posted on 11/04/2010 2:49:14 PM PDT by lbryce

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit against a state ballot measure that prohibits state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

Muneer Awad, head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed the lawsuit Thursday, saying it is unconstitutional. The ballot question was approved in Tuesday's election with 70 percent of the vote.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary retraining order to block the results of the election from being certified on Nov. 9.

Joseph Thai, of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, says there is no danger of international or Islamic law taking over the state's court system and the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem."

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: aclumia; cair; churchandstate; constitution; islam; islamicimperialism; islamiclaw; mosqueandstate; oklahoma; sharia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
It never fails to assault my senses, sets off waves of cognitive dissonance that reverberates deep within my soul;
Under Sharia Law, the extraordinarily profound rights, privileges as bestowed upon us by divine inspiration in the guise of the US Constitution would be summarily usurped, never be otherwise allowed, granted under the sort of immoral code, way of life this very plaintiff would have us all be enslaved, be beholden to, if he and his ilk would have their way.
1 posted on 11/04/2010 2:49:18 PM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

If a real American has no standing to challenge the former US Senator in our White House, then the CAIR lunatics have no standing in this case.


2 posted on 11/04/2010 2:51:39 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Um... our rule of law rests with the Constitution?
He needs to GTFO of my country.


3 posted on 11/04/2010 2:51:47 PM PDT by TexasPatriot1 ("Tyranny is defined as that which legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry" Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Joseph Thai, of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, says there is no danger of international or Islamic law taking over the state's court system and the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem."

Then why are muslims already filing suit to overturn it? I'd say that's proof that there is a problem and Oklahoma just wants to be pro-active and nip it in the bud.

4 posted on 11/04/2010 2:52:11 PM PDT by Tamar1973 (Germans in 1932 thought they were voting for change too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Sharia and this country cannot co-exist.


5 posted on 11/04/2010 2:52:46 PM PDT by ColdOne ( Nov 2,a wipeout!!! NO COMPROMISE!!!!!! Why does 0 not like Slurpee's?? anyone know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

IMHO; if this camel-jockey doesn’t like it here, go back to the tent he came from.


6 posted on 11/04/2010 2:52:51 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Congress is not forbidden from passing a law that disrespects a particular religion. That is as long as it doesn't disrespect all religions except one.

Congress is forbidden from passing a law that respects any particular religion.

7 posted on 11/04/2010 2:53:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

These radicals will push it as far as they can and keep pushing. Our federal government must stand up to this and say hell no! If not this will mushroom everywhere.


8 posted on 11/04/2010 2:53:54 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

Good for Oklahoma! Now, for a boatload of other states to copy Okahoma’s ban.


9 posted on 11/04/2010 2:54:55 PM PDT by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
JUST SAY HELL NO to SHARIA LAW!!!....
10 posted on 11/04/2010 2:57:24 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasPatriot1

Awad needs “a temporary retraining order!”


11 posted on 11/04/2010 2:57:27 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
I bet the same guy would be screaming about separation of church and state if the Oklahoma voters approved the use of Catholic canon law in Oklahoma legal decisions and had a seat for the Archbishop of Oklahoma City on the Oklahoma supreme court.
12 posted on 11/04/2010 2:57:53 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Dems' response to 11/2: Do not go gentle into that new day,Rage,rage against the coming of the dawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Let’s see, he is claiming that going by the constitution is unconstitutional. I wonder how he came to that frickin’ stupid and totally insane position? If a judge doesn’t throw this out immediately they are also insane.


13 posted on 11/04/2010 2:58:32 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Joseph Thai, of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, says there is no danger of international or Islamic law taking over the state's court system and the ballot measure is "an answer in search of a problem."

Some law professor. Any casual observer of our courts knows that all it takes is one political hack in a black robe to introduce all sorts of crackpot ideas into our judicial decisions.

14 posted on 11/04/2010 2:59:23 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

It is unconstitutional to use anything but statutory law originating from our constitutions. Banning a foreign law is actually perfectly constitutional and is expected.


15 posted on 11/04/2010 2:59:57 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Agreed


17 posted on 11/04/2010 3:01:54 PM PDT by TexasPatriot1 ("Tyranny is defined as that which legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry" Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Sharia and this country cannot co-exist.

Islam and the country can not coexist! Sharia is an integral and inseperable component of islam. Beatings, mutilations and honor killings are accepted practices among these ethugs and where our society refuses to allow such things the muslim does them anyway in contavention of OUR laws, customs, values and practices.

As far as I’m concerned the entire Western World...the US included...should outlaw the practice of islam as a matter of self defense. Islam is not a religion, per se, it’s a total, unified, political, cultural, economic, and judicial code of life that is completely at odds and opposed to our western heritage.

18 posted on 11/04/2010 3:02:06 PM PDT by pgkdan (Protect and Defend America! End the practice of islam on our shores before it's too late!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

That’s the plan the Muslim goal to enslave us or kill us we are infidel’s in the radical Muslim’s minds.


19 posted on 11/04/2010 3:02:18 PM PDT by FromLori (FromLori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I wish to support Islam, even though I don’t know anything about it.

I just wish to be a good, PC member of society and pay my dues (and taxes) and do whatever I am instructed to.

I don’t care about consequences.

- Après nous, le déluge*.

*Madame de Pompadour 1721-1764


20 posted on 11/04/2010 3:02:20 PM PDT by WesternCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Well, if this professor seems to thinks there is no chance of sharia coming to the state, what's the big deal? In other words, why is he or other groups using their money, time and effort to fight a law they say will never be needed or used?Hmm... Kind of proves the point of the law if you ask me.
21 posted on 11/04/2010 3:03:00 PM PDT by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“The ballot question was approved in Tuesday’s election with 70 percent of the vote”

It should have been 100% of the vote. What is wrong with people now a days?


22 posted on 11/04/2010 3:03:47 PM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

It is unconstitutional to use anything but statutory law originating from our constitutions. Banning a foreign law is actually perfectly constitutional and is expected.


23 posted on 11/04/2010 3:04:14 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Under our Constitution, there can not be one set of laws for some and another set of laws for others. Equal protection under the law........equal rights, etc. Our Constitution does not allow for sharia law in this country.


24 posted on 11/04/2010 3:04:18 PM PDT by YellowRoseofTx (Evil is not the opposite of God; it's the absence of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

What happens to society’s as the Muslim population grows in percentage of the total?
In the book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, written by Dr. Peter Hammond, he explores the topic of the impact that an increasing Muslim population has on that society. The lists below illustrate the Muslim population status of countries around the world, and exactly what changes to the societies can be expected according to Hammond.

The book as well as the author are controversial, but the topic is definitely something that needs to be explored and understood. From the book:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for

Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and ***ya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 100%


25 posted on 11/04/2010 3:08:39 PM PDT by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasPatriot1

Sometimes typos are funny! I checked, and that’s in the original copy!
“a temporary retraining order”


26 posted on 11/04/2010 3:08:39 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Will88
"says there is no danger of international or Islamic law taking over the state's court system".

...there is no danger...

Interesting Freudian slip there in inferring that Islamic Law is indeed, in fact,

a danger.

27 posted on 11/04/2010 3:08:59 PM PDT by lbryce (Obama Notwithstanding, America's Best Days Are Yet To Be .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
This is actually a great lawsuit.

The citizens of OK v. Islam and the UN.

Go ahead, lefty blackrobes. Make law. Write a 200 page BS decision that usurps our right to self government.

Rinos and rats got theirs in 2010. Judges are next.

28 posted on 11/04/2010 3:10:18 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We are being colonized by Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce; 2Jedismom; ridesthemiles; RetiredArmy

The really sad thing is that the OKC daily paper came out AGAINST this measure, saying it wasn’t really needed. All we need to do is look at a newspaper, or a newscast, or just look at the items on this thread, to realize that these barbarians want to impose their madness on the rest of us. On another thread, several people said that if they want to live under Sharia law, they should go live under it—in some other country. I second that motion.


29 posted on 11/04/2010 3:10:35 PM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Sharia and this country cannot co-exist.

EXACTLY!
A devout Muslim would agree with you, ironically. The islamists have no intention of keeping the Constitutional system in place should they take over.
30 posted on 11/04/2010 3:12:13 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Correction: ISLAM and the USA cannot co-exist — some time in the future it will have to come to a head or we will become just another Europe.

The new Congress must take a cold, hard look at the Muslim/US situation and draw a line in the sand. This is unprecedented — no group, outside of Islam, has ever tried to introduce their own laws.


31 posted on 11/04/2010 3:13:16 PM PDT by 353FMG (In the end, it will be either ISLAM or America -- it cannot be both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

I thought that was intentional.
Re-training would be in order.
He should learn the law of OUR land before doing stupid stuff like that, IMHO


33 posted on 11/04/2010 3:15:21 PM PDT by TexasPatriot1 ("Tyranny is defined as that which legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry" Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: verga

Thanks for that info. Excellent post.


34 posted on 11/04/2010 3:15:38 PM PDT by chilltherats (He was born with a roaring voice, and it had the trick of inflaming half-wits against their betters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: guardian_of_liberty

IBTZ


35 posted on 11/04/2010 3:16:14 PM PDT by TexasPatriot1 ("Tyranny is defined as that which legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry" Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; ForGod'sSake; AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...
An Oklahoma Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit against a state ballot measure that prohibits state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases. Muneer Awad, head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed the lawsuit Thursday, saying it is unconstitutional.
Shariah law isn't law anywhere -- but it isn't part of the Constitution or US law, regardless. If the courts uphold this ludicrous lie, it's going to get ugly, and fast. Thanks lbryce.


36 posted on 11/04/2010 3:17:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Joseph Thai, of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, says there is no danger of international or Islamic law taking over the state’s court system and the ballot measure is “an answer in search of a problem.”

What a dope Thai is. Of course there is no danger, the Oklahoma Constitution has been ammeneded to keep it from ever happening. We need such an ammendment to the U.S. constitution.


37 posted on 11/04/2010 3:18:01 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

I get uncomfortable wheneven I am even contemplating the BS complaint of Muslims.

Oh, my God, now I’m gong to be fired by National Public Radio.


38 posted on 11/04/2010 3:19:01 PM PDT by HearMe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

I’ve always thought that they meant “regarding” when they wrote “disrespecting.” YMMV!


39 posted on 11/04/2010 3:24:43 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Save the liver!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Maybe you sould look up the contemporary usage of "respecting". It was not used in the sense of "paying respect to"; rather it meant "regarding" or "concerning". IOW, Congress was to keep its nose out of religion -- pro or con...

However, this is not a situation of religion; it is a simple declaration that we have our own Law (the Consitution), and no other system of law applies in our country -- no matter what ignorant bunch of 7th century ragheads wants to try to drag their religion in as "law".

40 posted on 11/04/2010 3:26:37 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The ACLU is MIA.


41 posted on 11/04/2010 3:27:51 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Read my tagline. Saudi Arabia’s theocratic government is also technically prohibited from pushing Sharia in America through Saudi funded mosques and Saudi funded muslim organizations.


42 posted on 11/04/2010 3:31:15 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The establishment clause isn't just against my OWN government establishing state religion in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: verga

Mark.

Excellent info. Thanks for the post.


43 posted on 11/04/2010 3:35:39 PM PDT by Ladysmith ("A community organizer can't bitch when communities organize." Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

GMTA! ‘-) You were posting while I was typing...


44 posted on 11/04/2010 3:40:34 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; lbryce; Tamar1973; KarlInOhio
It is unconstitutional to use anything but statutory law originating from our constitutions. Banning a foreign law is actually perfectly constitutional and is expected.

You are very wrong. We generally recognize freedom of contract. That leads to limited, but important circumstances, in which U.S. courts can and should enforce foreign or religious law.

Let's say that parties to a dispute contract for binding arbitration before a panel of Catholic priests, and agree to settle their dispute under Canon law, or under the ancient Roman civil code. If a US court then doesn't enforce the arbiters decision, it's disrespecting contract rights and depriving people of property.

The same goes for the Oklahoma law. Oklahoma permits its citizens to contract for dispute under New York law, or Delaware law (quite common). If citizens want their dispute settled under sharia or Mexican law, and submit to binding arbitration based on that legal code, why shouldn't court enforce the arbiters' decision?

This isn't theoretical. I've known many people who've settled commercial disputes before a group of 3 Rabbis, who decide the case based on Jewish law. On the whole, this system works pretty well. You can get a decision in weeks instead of years, and save a fortune in legal fees by almost totally cutting out lawyers. But if you couldn't enforce the Rabbis' decision in court, this form of dispute resolution would basically be useless.

45 posted on 11/04/2010 3:46:30 PM PDT by ChicagoHebrew (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Article VI Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Nothing can override the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. If Sharia law overrides a right, then it is unconstitutional.

-PJ

46 posted on 11/04/2010 3:55:05 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoHebrew

“You are very wrong. “

You obviously do not know or understand Sharia law. NO agreement can violate a person’s civil rights and that is exactly what Sharia law does.


47 posted on 11/04/2010 3:55:47 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoHebrew

“This isn’t theoretical. I’ve known many people who’ve settled commercial disputes before a group of 3 Rabbis, who decide the case based on Jewish law”

Did that get to a US court and be upheld? Didn’t think so.


48 posted on 11/04/2010 3:58:39 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Cartridge Box
49 posted on 11/04/2010 3:59:02 PM PDT by SENTINEL (SGT USMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoHebrew
"This isn't theoretical. I've known many people who've settled commercial disputes before a group of 3 Rabbis, who decide the case based on Jewish law. On the whole, this system works pretty well. You can get a decision in weeks instead of years, and save a fortune in legal fees by almost totally cutting out lawyers. But if you couldn't enforce the Rabbis' decision in court, this form of dispute resolution would basically be useless.This would work as long as the two parties in disagreement agree to abide by the decision of the two Rabbis. If one of the parties disagrees, does it then have to go to the courts?
50 posted on 11/04/2010 4:00:45 PM PDT by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 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