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

Skip to comments.

4th Amendment Dead, SCOTUS dancing on grave
US Supreme Court, Kentucky vs King ^ | May 16, 2011 | SCOTUS

Posted on 05/16/2011 11:44:39 AM PDT by jonascord

The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements:All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may notbe issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. Although“ ‘searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are pre-sumptively unreasonable,’ ” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 403, this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a]warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,”

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; blackrobedtyrants; brighamcity; corruption; donttreadonme; fascism; fourthamendment; govtabuse; judicialtyranny; ruling; scotus; supremecourt; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
I knew the Constitution thing couldn't last...
1 posted on 05/16/2011 11:44:46 AM PDT by jonascord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Completely illegal and violation of our Bill of Rights. Government cannot issue or take away our birth rights that come from our Creator.

If they are allowed to get away with this, then what is next? The second amendment or the first amendment?


2 posted on 05/16/2011 11:49:13 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
A cop gets a report of a domestic argument...from Mary two houses away. The cop goes to the door. He hears swearing clear as a bell. Knocks on the door. Man says go away. He hears help, help me in the background.

What does cop do??

As it turns out, the TV was on real loud because he was using his dremmel to fix a kitchen cupboard.

3 posted on 05/16/2011 11:49:51 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

I don’t see the problem. This whole “freedom” thing is just an inconvenience anyway...

Wait, do I need a sarcasm tag? Or was that clear?


4 posted on 05/16/2011 11:51:04 AM PDT by HushTX (I make libs rage quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

End of America, welcome to the Gulag Comrades.


5 posted on 05/16/2011 11:51:14 AM PDT by King_Corey (www.kingcorey.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

The judicial branch of the U.S. government is at war with the citizens and the Constitution. It is time to start passing laws and amending the Constitution making it easier to boot these people out of their positions, and even jailing them for crimes against the Constitution.


6 posted on 05/16/2011 11:52:31 AM PDT by jeffc (Prayer. It's freedom of speech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Overrule a M14 in the hands of a righteously indignant citizen with a piece of paper...?


7 posted on 05/16/2011 11:58:20 AM PDT by mmercier (Do not attempt this at home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Less Than $2.3k To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR


8 posted on 05/16/2011 11:58:45 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

OK, all you Oath Keepers, where are you?


9 posted on 05/16/2011 11:58:46 AM PDT by jonascord (The Drug War Rapes the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

They federal judiciary should be called what they are, black robed terrorists.


10 posted on 05/16/2011 11:59:21 AM PDT by government is the beast (In the last century, an estimated 262 million people have been murderd by their own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
What is being missed by all of the 4th amendment scrapping issues lately is that a terrible result will prevail because of it.

The warrant needed to be issued by a judge who has reviewed evidence and in writing describes where a home can be searched and exactly what may be searched for. The fairness of that process is what provides safety for all parties involved, and mostly for the law enforcement officers! A properly constructed and executed search warrant written by a judge who has to comply with law, is what makes the system fair and by the consent of the governed. Once that is destroyed, the consent is gone, along with respect, civility, and give a damnedness.

More cops and people will get killed over this, but then again that would be a great excuse to scrap the second amendment as well.

11 posted on 05/16/2011 11:59:45 AM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

more sarcasm in case people miss it:

“How are we to maintain order if the individual can keep us out of their private property?”


12 posted on 05/16/2011 12:00:28 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

I don’t see the problem. They had reasonable cause to do a warrantless search even if it was the wrong apartment. Did any of you actually read the document?


13 posted on 05/16/2011 12:01:47 PM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mmercier

What? you didn’t start shooting when they said, “You can have a gun, EXCEPT...” Why should you start now?


14 posted on 05/16/2011 12:01:47 PM PDT by jonascord (The Drug War Rapes the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

I posted this on another thread re; Obama’s reelection chances not so bad.

I see this coming, especially now with that pesky little Constitution thingie out of the way. This is courtesy of Mr. Jello Biafra, former lead singer of the Dead Kennedys.

We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under martial law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents or attorneys.
Shut up.
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone caught outside the gates of their subdivision sectors after curfew
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in
the morning.
Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine examples will be
shot.
Stay in your homes, remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is questions.
National security is more important than individual will.
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up, be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The comfort you’ve demanded is now mandatory.
Be happy.
At last everything is done for you.

I know Jello’s an anarchist, and he can certainly rant, but I remember hearing this many years ago. Never thought it’d likely come true. Enjoy......while you can.


15 posted on 05/16/2011 12:02:09 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jeffc

How long until each federal district has it’s own judicial and political elite housing compound? It can’t be far off?


16 posted on 05/16/2011 12:02:15 PM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
this presumption may be overcome when “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a]warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,”

IOW if the gestapo fills like it

17 posted on 05/16/2011 12:02:36 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

This one along with the Indiana Supreme Court ruling tipped the point. The Indiana one only affirms the worst.


18 posted on 05/16/2011 12:04:20 PM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

There’s no such thing as private property. That would mean we can actually OWN stuff, which would mean we EARN stuff. Please. We all know that everything we have is at the whim of the gubmint.


19 posted on 05/16/2011 12:06:27 PM PDT by HushTX (I make libs rage quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

This sounds like it came from The Onion, last person I would expect this from.

JUSTICE GINSBURG, dissenting.
The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to
dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in
drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then
break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time
to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court’s reduction
of the Fourth Amendment’s force.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people “[t]he
right . . . to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Warrants to search,
the Amendment further instructs, shall issue only upon a
showing of “probable cause” to believe criminal activity is
afoot


20 posted on 05/16/2011 12:07:13 PM PDT by pennboricua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Note that Thomas concurred, and only Ginsburg dissented. That says something good.

Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop” - a warrantless search allowed on the grounds that any competent person would conclude that a crime was being committed, that it was being committed without motivation by undue threat, and that any delay in doing the search would reasonably result in destruction of evidence of any wrongdoing. To wit, there isn’t time to get a warrant, and by all expectations a warrant WOULD be granted (and WILL be retroactively).

Lower courts had developed a variety of inconsistent ways of handling the particular issue, and time has come for SCOTUS to impose a uniform standard.

Upshot: cops suspect criminal activity, knock on the door, get no answer, and hear sounds making clear evidence is being destroyed with fear and haste. Insofar as possession of contraband is a crime, of course police may thus execute a search before said contraband is destroyed and disposed.

Don’t confuse this with the other case of late, where a state (Wisconsin?) declared one may not resist an ILLEGAL search. In this case, the search is deemed legal as the only thing lacking is paperwork, which will without doubt be procured once the urgency is passed.


21 posted on 05/16/2011 12:07:24 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518

My inalienable rights are enforceable at my front door... if they proceed without a warrant their lives are forfeited.


22 posted on 05/16/2011 12:09:48 PM PDT by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Note that this does NOT protect police if they perform the warrantless search and do not find the alleged at-risk evidence.


23 posted on 05/16/2011 12:10:16 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
The judicial branch of the U.S. government is at war with the citizens and the Constitution. It is time to start passing laws and amending the Constitution making it easier to boot these people out of their positions, and even jailing them for crimes against the Constitution.
Agreed.
24 posted on 05/16/2011 12:10:16 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
what is next


25 posted on 05/16/2011 12:10:36 PM PDT by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
So, you're OK with junking the restrictions of the 4th Amendment on the police: No warrent is ever required with the expectation that the courts will EVENTUALLY pick up the slack, AFTER THE FACT, ONCE THE BODIES ARE IN THE GROUND?!?!

You've developed an interesting legal presumption. May the chains rest lightly on you...

26 posted on 05/16/2011 12:11:01 PM PDT by jonascord (The Drug War Rapes the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

I think the Supremes read too much into the case, which could be simplified as follows: “There are two doors, one of which leads to a pursued suspect, and the other of which leads to someone not involved in the ongoing pursuit.”

“Exigencies apply only to the door behind which is the pursued suspect, not to any other door, despite odors, sounds, etc. coming from behind those doors. They do not, and cannot, apply to any other door, or else the police in pursuit of a suspect and entering an apartment building have the authority to inspect each and every room behind a door, and arrest people within for unrelated criminal offenses, based on their impression that some exigency may exist behind that door.”

If the door is certain, then the exigency is certain. If the door is not certain, alleged exigency is wishful thinking.


27 posted on 05/16/2011 12:11:29 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect

That is all it’s going to take...


28 posted on 05/16/2011 12:11:33 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

That is so very like what my father told me many, many years ago. His theory was; you really don’t own your house, or the property it sits on, because you have to pay property taxes. And when you don’t, the State (I mean this in the classical term, ie., the government) will confiscate it from you. Ergo, the State actually owns your house/property, and the property taxes you pay is your rent. Therefore, you, as a private citizen, only own your possesions (auto, lawnmower, Hummel figurines, et al).

I’ve pondered this point over the years, and I think my dad (RIP, 2008) was 100% right, in my opinion.


29 posted on 05/16/2011 12:11:51 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Skimming the ruling, it seems sensible. It’s equivalent to a “Terry stop”

In the sense that it is a logical continuation down the slippery slope, you are correct.

30 posted on 05/16/2011 12:11:57 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HushTX

You’re right. There’s a reason it’s called “real” estate, and it’s not because there’s anything like “fake” estate.

“Real” refers to Rey Al, IE, belonging to the king.

If the property can be taken from you for not paying taxes on said property, you’re just a glorified serf and renter.

This needs to be addressed if things ever get “re-adjusted” back to individual freedom.


31 posted on 05/16/2011 12:12:22 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
There are 2 issues which though may have been addressed at trial, leaves me wondering about the following:

1. Does a person merely "Suspected" of being a drug dealer rise to the level of allowing LEO's to follow the person to wherever and then, based upon his "Suspected" activities, proceed with the actions they took; and,

2. What exactly were the "noises" the Cops heard which led them to believe that said noise were consistent with someone trying to destroy evidence?

Unless the apartment had very hollow exterior doors and they Cops could hear someone (plainly) articulating that they should destroy the evidence and/or the bathroom was close enough to the entrance (not usually the case) then I am guessing that they used this often applied "ruse" as an excuse to exercise the forced entry.

I'm not a drug user but this "War on Drugs" is getting way out of hand and way too much time and resources are being expended thereon.

This was Pot for crying out loud; not a meth lab and having followed this suspect to wherever, I can't believe they did not have the time to get a search warrant.

Cops everywhere have to earn their keep and it's much easier to go after low level drug pushers than rapist, muggers, robbers and murderers and having at one time been a Fed Agent I can attest that many LEO's (though most draw the line at planting evidence or outright perjury) fudge facts in order to nail their suspects and close cases.

Sad, very sad and I predict it will only get worse as it appears we have turned the clock back to the time of Tricky Dick Nixon's period of extreme Law and Order at the expense of all of our rights and not only those of the bad guys.

32 posted on 05/16/2011 12:12:34 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

The First Amendment has been under attack for a while now with the so called ‘Fairness Doctrine’. It is already seriously abridged by ‘hate speech’ laws and political correctness.

Soon, only ‘approved speech’ will be allowed to be broadcast.

This is the goal and the dream of the Marxist Democrats.


33 posted on 05/16/2011 12:13:26 PM PDT by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

The only flaw in the ruling is the meaning of ‘exigent circumstances’.

There is no violation of the fourth amendment here. The police had reasonable cause, that being the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment. When they start shuffling around inside the apartment they blew it right there. That’s where the exigent circumstances come into play.

What they should have done is open the door, step out and close the door behind them.


34 posted on 05/16/2011 12:13:41 PM PDT by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

What is the point of a Judge if Cops are the judge, jury and executioner?


35 posted on 05/16/2011 12:13:41 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Going down the hall I found the fire. A woman in a blue nighty dashed by me and went into the apartment ~ I could see the blue haze at the ceiling and the flames leaping up from every part of the apartment.

I grabbed her and dragged her out of there just as there was a violent eruption of flame.

She'd been dead otherwise.

I never once thought I had made an unlawful entry. Now, if I'd been a cop or a fireman would the law have looked at that action differently and counseled them to stand aside until the fire died down and they had a warrant. After all it is unreasonable to dash into a fire to save someone's life.

36 posted on 05/16/2011 12:14:24 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
These problems originate from the proliferation of laws that cause the perceived necessity to pile on more statute... It is a tendency of those who have civilized themselves to run things into the ground via regulation of order.

It is a total spiral ending in state control of every aspect of being.... Anarchy and dissolution of form and structure on mass scale at specific point and time. This is what we do.

The only “laws” that should be “passed” are “laws” repealing former statute”.

The deeper this goes, the less people will care and act in orderly fashion. When there is a law for everything, selectively enforced, no one cares. When there is a simple mechanism that predictably enforces specific crimes all understand... People get.... nice.

We are witnessing the fall of Rome in real time.

37 posted on 05/16/2011 12:16:11 PM PDT by mmercier (fear is not the end of this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

****Note that this does NOT protect police if they perform the warrantless search and do not find the alleged at-risk evidence.****

Protect them from what, a few weeks paid administrative leave?


38 posted on 05/16/2011 12:16:23 PM PDT by ResponseAbility (Islam...Imperialism in a turban.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

If they could still “step” eh!


39 posted on 05/16/2011 12:17:50 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: paul51

The slippery slope is that which is criminalized, not the enforcement. Keep ‘em straight & separate.


40 posted on 05/16/2011 12:18:05 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

Peter it’s called the law. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.

Cops don’t get to pick and choose the laws they do not like. Sorry everyone, and specially the police since they are the law enforcers, have to follow it.

If you let them get away with this, then it will not be long before you are target. Sorry but I STRONGLY disagree with you. I don’t care if it was to get a criminal. The cops have to play by the rules too.

These judges should be removed from the bench. They have violated their own Oath.


41 posted on 05/16/2011 12:18:32 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Bingo!


42 posted on 05/16/2011 12:19:57 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrB

What do you have to hide? If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so worried about the cops coming in?


43 posted on 05/16/2011 12:19:57 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland

I’m with you. Those objecting are reacting, not thinking, as they have not in fact read the ruling. It is very sensible.


44 posted on 05/16/2011 12:20:32 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (Great children's books - http://www.UsborneBooksGA.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Hi jonascord —

Greetings from a fellow Oklahoman. I took the time to read the 8-1 decision with Justice Ginsburg being the only dissent.

Stubborn things, facts. According to the published slip opinion: “Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside an apartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent and others. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search.” Hmmm. So there was “probable cause” to enter and detain, and they did.

Frankly, I do believe there are times when the dark forces of crime and evil will use the Constitution as a sword, and not a shield. In the entirety of judicial thought and history, bad guys should not be able to “hide” their nefarious activities in the manner that these alleged criminals did in Kentucky. There are some circumstances that are indeed exigent. This was one of them.

That is not to say that every intrusion upon the rights of an individual will be cavalierly disregarded. They will always be the avenue of being scrutinized by the courts, as occurred in this case. And, if there is a violation of rights, there will be Hell to pay!

Best regards,

Gwjack


45 posted on 05/16/2011 12:21:16 PM PDT by gwjack (May God give America His richest blessings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I’ve read different things on the etymology of the term, but in any event, when you are compelled (through the force of law) to pay a tax on something you “own”, and if this something can be take away from you, again, through the force of law, the status of being an “owner” becomes rather questionable.

I agree, it needs to be addressed, but I’ll be looking out my 3rd floor window for the magic, Skittles defecating unicorn soaring over the rainbow before I expect so serious an issue to be considered.


46 posted on 05/16/2011 12:21:45 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

I’d ask the same thing of the cops that don’t want to be videoed while they are performing their duties -

if you’re doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?


47 posted on 05/16/2011 12:22:34 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MrB

payoffs and physical abuse...err they are protecting their informants and tactics.


48 posted on 05/16/2011 12:24:37 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
You just get all sweaty and breathe hard with the freedoms given to the JBTs by this Drug War thing?

This is like that South Park joke! Scream "He's coming straight for us!" just before you shoot... Except, no one is laughing.

Try "flushing" 10 kilos of crack. Even if he managed it, you've stopped all that drug use, bankrupted him, destroyed his plumbing, buzzed a few thousand fish, and not broken the Bill of Rights. Is some pissy "arrest" so valuable? I just hope some 'roided cop hears your TV...

49 posted on 05/16/2011 12:24:52 PM PDT by jonascord (The Drug War Rapes the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Upshot: cops suspect criminal activity, knock on the door, get no answer, and hear sounds making clear evidence is being destroyed with fear and haste.

They did not rule on this but sounds like a cop could claim this anytime they want to enter a residence. A Carte blanch open door to any house in America.

Insofar as possession of contraband is a crime, of course police may thus execute a search before said contraband is destroyed and disposed.

This is how the drug warriors were able to trash the 4th Amendment - they got SCOTUS to grant an exception to the 4th Amendment because evidence might be destroyed. There is a special place in hell waiting for those that made this ruling (Rehnquist is already there).

This proves that conservatives are as big a threat as liberals to our Constitution and freedoms.
50 posted on 05/16/2011 12:24:52 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 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