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

Skip to comments.

GOP readies for DREAM Act fight
Politico ^ | 11/22/2010 | Scott Wong

Posted on 11/23/2010 9:20:06 AM PST by Qbert

Senate Republicans and their conservative allies are sharpening their attacks on the proposed DREAM Act that would provide a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, declaring it would give “amnesty” to millions — some of them criminals.

The legislation, which would apply to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, has been overshadowed by other big-ticket items on the lame-duck congressional calendar. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are now pushing for votes on it this year.

Already, GOP staffers have begun circulating to senators and conservative groups a white paper outlining what they see as the social and financial costs of passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.

“In addition to immediately putting an estimated 2.1 million illegal immigrants (including certain criminal aliens) on a path to citizenship, the DREAM Act would give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans and federal work-study programs,” said the research paper, being distributed by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The paper adds that those who obtain legal status under the DREAM Act would have the right to seek naturalization for their family members, including the parents who illegally brought them to the U.S. as children.

“In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act,” the paper states.

The Heritage Foundation, one of many conservative groups that have received a copy of the paper, is also pumping out information about what it sees as flaws in the proposed law. The foundation is sending out research papers to its 700,000 members and posting blogs written by its analysts.

“People do not want to degrade our immigration laws further, and that’s what the DREAM Act would do,” said Jena Baker McNeill, a homeland security policy analyst at Heritage. “We’re just being honest what the bill is: It seems like a good bill until you look and see it’s very much an amnesty bill that will encourage people to come here illegally.”

The bill’s backers, though, say it outlines a “rigorous and lengthy process” for legalization, hardly the amnesty plan that opponents have depicted.

Eligible immigrants must have entered the U.S. before age 16, lived in the country at least five consecutive years before the bill’s enactment; been younger than 35 at the time of enactment; admitted to a college or earned a high-school diploma or GED certificate; and should have no serious criminal record.

Those who receive conditional resident status would need to attend college or serve in the military at least two years.

“This is about accountability, not amnesty,” said a White House official who’s been closely monitoring the DREAM Act. “It will take a few Republicans to get this through Congress, but they have to realize we can’t keep kicking the can down the road. They have to help govern and to solve some of the problems.”

In the absence of any broader immigration reform, President Barack Obama reiterated his support for the DREAM Act after Reid vowed last week to bring it to the Senate floor in December as a stand-alone bill. Republicans had blocked the measure in September after Democrats tried to attach it to the defense authorization bill.

To build broader support for the bill, its chief sponsor, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), has rolled out new versions of the bill that would keep in place a ban on in-state tuition for undocumented students. One version would lower the age of eligibility to 30.

Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar is the only Republican who has signed onto the Durbin bill. But more GOP support will be crucial to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to thwart a filibuster given that some Democrats have already voiced their opposition.

“I’m not going to support any act that I don’t think adds to jobs, or military or to the economy. Consequently I won’t support any motion to proceed or any kind of cloture on the DREAM Act,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told POLITICO. “In addition, I think that has to be part of an overall comprehensive solution to immigration once we have the border secured, not until then.”

Reid has argued to the contrary, saying the legislation recognizes that immigrants are a critical component to a thriving economy and rewards those fighting to defend America’s freedom.

“This bill will give children brought illegally to this country at no fault of their own the chance to earn legal status,” Reid said.

The Republican research paper tries to correct 10 perceived misperceptions about the bill, including that the bill would not require immigrants to obtain a college degree or even serve in the military. The bill also is not limited to just children, the paper says. The age cap could be as high as 35, meaning some immigrants could be as old as 41 by the time they gain full permanent resident status.

The four-page document also points out that undocumented immigrants with misdemeanor convictions, including DUIs, could still be eligible under the act. And it argues that the bill provides “safe harbor” for criminal aliens, barring the Homeland Security Department from deporting “any alien who has a pending application for permanent status” under the DREAM Act.

“This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States,” the document reads. “The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.”


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; crimalien; dicklugar; dreamact; illegal; illegalimmigration; illegals; mexico

1 posted on 11/23/2010 9:20:16 AM PST by Qbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Qbert

If you thought the term “undocumented worker” was bad just wait. Deval Patrick here in Assachusetts is now calling them “new Americans”.

Someone PLEASE shoot me.


2 posted on 11/23/2010 9:23:32 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Since some claim that Republicans are the party of “NO”, they should stand up and confirm this statement and say “NO WAY”. Don’t even address it until after January, then close the borders and start deporting all illegals. This was done many years ago, it can be done again but not until they start.


3 posted on 11/23/2010 9:25:34 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I really hope we can stop the Scorched Earth Democrats as they pursue their Scorched Earth policies during their Scorched Earth congressional session.


4 posted on 11/23/2010 9:26:05 AM PST by Maceman (Obama -- he's as American as nasi goreng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
Someone PLEASE shoot me.

One of those "new Americans" might just do that. They do the jobs the old Americans won't.

5 posted on 11/23/2010 9:26:36 AM PST by DaveyB (Fear is the foundation of most governments -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I hope they mean to carry out the fight in the correct manner:

The first step is to offer a major amendment which would supplement the provisions with

1. (The most crucial thing) A prohibition on “chain” immigration using a DREAM Act beneficiary as the anchor. Something along the lines of “Permanent residency or citizenship attained through the provisions of this act shall not be considered as the basis for family-reunification applications for residence or citizenship in the United States”.

2. A package of border enforcement provisions, including funding for them.

3. Funding for better enforcement against employers knowingly hiring persons in the U.S. illegally and against identity fraud by persons in the U.S. illegally.

If the amendment goes through, don’t fight further, everyone vote their conscience on the amended bill. If it fails, step two is to throw as many procedural roadblocks, including a filibuster in the Senate in the way of the blasted thing.

Now, if you think the amendment will fail for sure, you might ask, “why bother?” Because this puts the ‘Rats and RINOs on record as supporting a covert blanket amnesty-with-track-to-citizenship, rather than (as they claim) merely not wanting to visit the crimes of parents on their children.


6 posted on 11/23/2010 9:28:03 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
If you thought the term “undocumented worker” was bad just wait. Deval Patrick here in Assachusetts is now calling them “new Americans”.

Deval's slipping.

He should be calling them Superior Citizens.

7 posted on 11/23/2010 9:29:38 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

This very act is one of the reasons I been stating that the TSA BS is a smokescreen. Don’t let the TSA so dominate our thoughts, that this cr@p gets through! The TSA is nasty, but this is HORRIBLE!


8 posted on 11/23/2010 9:31:25 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

Send all the illegals to California. They can get all the in-state tuition they want.


9 posted on 11/23/2010 9:34:40 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS.

P-E-R-I-O-D !


10 posted on 11/23/2010 9:34:47 AM PST by Reagan69 (Let me know when those health insurance premiums go down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

The RATS know that they can’t get this passed. It’s just to force a vote to show Republicans are anti-Latino. This is all a setup—a show vote— for the 2012 elections.


11 posted on 11/23/2010 9:35:10 AM PST by SC_Pete (pRO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
When my grandparents came here, the process was brutally rigorous..

No diseases
No criminal associations
No disability preventing work, etc.,

I mean, if you think the TSA ‘searches’ are de-humanizing you would not believe what these people had to undergo.

12 posted on 11/23/2010 9:38:02 AM PST by SMARTY (Conforming to non-conformity is conforming just the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
The legislation, which would apply to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, has been overshadowed by other big-ticket items on the lame-duck congressional calendar. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are now pushing for votes on it this year.

Didn't another Senator simply stop legislation right in it's tracks with a parliamentarian move that puts off the legislation until the next year?

13 posted on 11/23/2010 9:38:52 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

Don’t forget - our ancestors also had to carry identification (resident alien cards, etc.) and had to be able to produce it at a moments notice.


14 posted on 11/23/2010 9:40:20 AM PST by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

It’s always about the illegals’ dreams. What about US citizens’ dreams?


15 posted on 11/23/2010 9:40:35 AM PST by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

Patrick has a lot of figment of imagination thingies going on.

He is fraudulent like the rest of them.


16 posted on 11/23/2010 9:41:18 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
I am glad we are looking so good financially that we have time to deal with other issues.
17 posted on 11/23/2010 9:42:55 AM PST by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Time to light up their phones and remind them that they are up for re-election and that if they give us a reason, they will be in the cross-hairs this election cycle. I can work on more than one campaign at once . . . happily.
18 posted on 11/23/2010 9:43:04 AM PST by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

One of those “new Americans” might just do that. They do the jobs the old Americans won’t.

*****************

Bush #2 repeated that just the other day during an interview with Rush while touting his book. I hoped Rush would call him on it, but he did not.


19 posted on 11/23/2010 9:48:02 AM PST by Psalm 144
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

>Send all the illegals to California. They can get all the in-state tuition they want.

We’re already up to our eyeballs in illegals and “ese’s”. I could barely reach the entrance of Home Depot without hitting an illegal at the entrance.


20 posted on 11/23/2010 9:48:30 AM PST by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


21 posted on 11/23/2010 9:57:24 AM PST by HiJinx (I can see Mexico from the back porch...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE
My grandparents spoke a minimum of English and only in public. When they were with friends/relatives, it was always their own language.

THEY had been held to the requirement of learning English, and to learn it passably... so they could vote.

What the h&^% is anyone doing in this country, calling him/herself American if they can't even speak English well enough to understand a ballot or printed information about issues and candidates. It makes NO sense.

22 posted on 11/23/2010 9:57:54 AM PST by SMARTY (Conforming to non-conformity is conforming just the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

yes and that dog stopped hunting in nov/10


23 posted on 11/23/2010 10:02:26 AM PST by italianquaker ( teabag the vote!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

It wont pass and Dirty Harry knows it. He has too many RATS against it.

This is all for show, nothing more.


24 posted on 11/23/2010 10:03:06 AM PST by freespirited (This tagline dedicated to the memory of John Armor, a/k/a Congressman Billybob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I thought Demint would put a “hold” on all of this?


25 posted on 11/23/2010 10:10:32 AM PST by Sybeck1 (Is it proper etiquette to tip after a pat down?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete
...It’s just to force a vote to show Republicans are anti-Latino. This is all a setup...

With any luck at all, the Pubbies will showcase the LEGALITY part of this issue, and the entitlements part. We cannot continue down the path of continued entitlements to all.

Most people get this ~ especially in these times.

Many latinos (citizens) do not want amnesty.

26 posted on 11/23/2010 10:12:29 AM PST by Jane Long (2 Chron 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

They should just say no to the Nightmare act.

Every perk given to illegals and their children causes more people to think sneaking into the U. S. pays off.

And of course it does. That has got to stop.


27 posted on 11/23/2010 10:14:55 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Your next chance like this? About 2044. Vote popularity and don't waste time with the details.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

What makes the DREAM Act so aggravating is that it is “half reasonable”.

That is, there are lots of illegal alien minors who were brought here as infants and young children. Many have no memories of Mexico, attended primary and secondary school, speak mostly English, and are culturally Americans.

To send them “back to Mexico” is as traumatic and cruel as to send a legal American child to a non-English speaking third world country. Race does not matter in this situation, because it is throwing a child to the wolves.

Recognition as “de jure” Americans instead of just “de facto” Americans, means that they continue to live the life they have been leading, that they were trained for, and to which they want to be productive citizens.

Of course there should be preconditions to this. Such as criminal activity of their own volition outside of their state of being. Certainly this is grounds for deportation. Likewise, after living here many years, if they have not mastered the English language, graduated from secondary school, and/or have lived extensively on government benefits, it is not in our societal interest that they remain here.

This is not difficult discrimination to make. Most of what matters is public record.

The end result is that if you demonstrate you have acted like a good citizen, you can become a citizen. But if you have not, you should no longer live here.

But this is not in the DREAM Act.

In practice, the normal path to citizenship is intolerable, and it means excluding good potential citizens to make way for less desirable citizens. It should be simplified specifically for the good potential citizens, with an emphasis on discriminating against the bad ones.

Gang membership should mean immediate deportation, if there is no other outstanding criminal penalty to be taken first. Other criminal activity is fine justification for rapid deportation as well. Living on public assistance more than a bare minimum of time should also act as a discriminator—we do not need social parasites. And ignorance and unwillingness to integrate likewise.

It is not hard to distinguish such people from those who offer our society far more than they consume.


28 posted on 11/23/2010 10:22:07 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
There is enough in the Constitution to repudiate BOTH the TSA and this DREAM ACT; and there's also stuff in the US Code to give it TEETH!.
On the TSA: Amendment 4.
In the DREAM ACT: Section 4 of Article 4 which reads:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

And the killing-blow:

US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
 
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
 
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
US Code, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 109A, § 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse
(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act
  1. by using force against that other person; or
  2. by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
  1. renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
  2. administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
         (A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
         (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
 
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

29 posted on 11/23/2010 10:30:28 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“There is enough in the Constitution to repudiate BOTH the TSA and this DREAM ACT;”

Yes, there is. But,,, better that the Dream Act is never passed, than to have to try and repudiate it in Congress or the Courts. If it passes, and the young illegals are given citizenship, that will not be able to be undone. Ex Post Facto will prevent taking their citizenship away. Better that it fails now, rather than latter!


30 posted on 11/23/2010 10:43:20 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

NO - NO Compromise on the Dream Act - just stiff arm it and DARE any Republican Senator to waver. Report any wavering Senator to the army of Tea Party members and have them chastised from the Senate Floor...

Mount a massive Tea Party - phone - fax and email campaign - even D.C. protest in mass to stop this craziness.


31 posted on 11/23/2010 10:44:08 AM PST by ICCtheWay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: italianquaker

It was important in the southwest and California.


32 posted on 11/23/2010 10:54:17 AM PST by SC_Pete (pRO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

Let’s hope. Entitlements, including Obamacare, will cause us to slide into socialism.


33 posted on 11/23/2010 10:57:46 AM PST by SC_Pete (pRO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
And why are the Dems so anxious to get this one bill through?

They are DESPERATE for votes for '12.

34 posted on 11/23/2010 11:13:59 AM PST by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICCtheWay

The problem with that strategy is that stopping the DREAM Act, without using the tactics I proposed to make it clear that the left really wants to open up a covert blanket amnesty, hands the left a propaganda coup with independents and moderates by letting them trot, out the stories of kids brought into the U.S. at the age of two-months or five-years who have grown up completely Americanized, but legally are Mexicans or Guatemalans or whatever, who can’t really be sent “back” because psychologically and socially their home has always been here.

The compromise of a DREAM Act with a cut-off to chain-immigration to legalize parents who broke U.S. law (or other relatives for that matter) and enforcement provisions with teeth has to be offered to unmask the left’s true intent.


35 posted on 11/23/2010 11:14:57 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

How can the repeal of “citizenship” ‘given’ by a law that is invalid due to its contraryness to the Constitution be Ex Post Facto?

Don’t you know that the Supreme Court, in 1798’s Calder v. Bull case, ruled that the prohibitions against Ex Post Facto laws apply ONLY to criminal laws? [/slight-snark]
That declaration, that such prohibitions apply only to criminal law, is the basis for Congress being able to make Ex Post Facto changes to the “administrative”/”regulatory” law, the violation of which is prosecuted in *CRIMINAL* court, obviously shows that “ex post facto” only applies “when convenient.”

I’m ALL in favor of making the Government choke on its own words/rulings.


36 posted on 11/23/2010 11:18:03 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Sorry - I have no concern about any illegal alien - young or old... I only have concern for American Citizens - whether they have a job and their family is safe.

Any Republican Member of the House or Senate who Votes for the Dream act is a traitor to the USA and will be treated accordingly.

No Amnesty - no way - not for anyone young or old -— too damn bad.


37 posted on 11/23/2010 11:20:57 AM PST by ICCtheWay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Qbert

I still am convinced that the number of illegals is much closer to 50-55 million here - counting also the ones who came YEARS ago & never got legal.


38 posted on 11/23/2010 11:58:30 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

NObama is pulling the National Guard off the Southern Border, also.
He JUST SENT them a couple of months go.

What a dog-pony show he is.

Then, he is moving NORTHERN Border Ptrol agents to the Southern Border-—for an unknown time frame.

Smoke & mirrors—

Walnut shells & the pea-—

There is nothing solid about this empty suit!!


39 posted on 11/23/2010 12:20:48 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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