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

Skip to comments.

50% Believe Fed Government Has Too Much Influence Over States, 11% Say Not Enough
Rasmussen Reports ^ | August 25, 2011

Posted on 08/25/2011 10:47:55 AM PDT by markomalley

Americans overall tend to trust governments closer to home rather than the federal government and worry that the team in DC has too much influence over state governments. However, Democrats and those who are politically liberal take an entirely different view.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of Likely Voters believe the federal government has too much influence over state governments. Just 11% think the federal government does not have enough influence while 26% believe the balance is about right. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

On the question of which branch of government does a better job, 33% pick local governments, 23% look to the state level, and 15% prefer the federal government. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure.

These results come at a time when just 17% believe the federal government has the consent of the governed and only 14% believe the country is generally heading in the right direction.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2011polls; donttreadonme; fedgov; fedzilla; govtabuse; statesrights; tyranny

1 posted on 08/25/2011 10:47:56 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

11%? Isn’t that even less than the percentage of federal employees?


2 posted on 08/25/2011 10:51:19 AM PDT by null and void (Day 944 of America's holiday from reality...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Wait until the practical applications of the “super congress” sinks in to all of the disenfrachised States.


3 posted on 08/25/2011 10:57:14 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
11% think the federal government does not have enough influence

That is usually an indication of the
percentage of card carrying communists.

4 posted on 08/25/2011 11:02:54 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

feral employees.


5 posted on 08/25/2011 11:03:36 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Disturbing that 39% are clueless.

Which means they don’t do much thinking about the effect of government on their lives.


6 posted on 08/25/2011 11:07:26 AM PDT by cookcounty ("I feel really uncomfortable, because I love loving him," --brilliant Matha's Vinyud liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is a good sign. Now we simply have to explain to these 50% HOW the federal government got this much power. Simple: abusing the Commerce Clause to give the federal government control over every aspect of your lives. The federal government restricts the water capacity of your toilet, it tells you what types of light bulbs you can buy, it tells you what types of guns you can own, and it tells you whether or not you can legally use medical marijuana.


7 posted on 08/25/2011 11:49:49 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy ("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

That 11% who think the feds don’t have enough control, and the 26% who believe the balance is just right should be arrested and deported immediately. That would eliminate all liberals. What a wonderful country we would have if that happened.


8 posted on 08/25/2011 12:05:01 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

agree


9 posted on 08/25/2011 12:06:58 PM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: null and void

“11%? Isn’t that even less than the percentage of federal employees?”

On a related note its actually sad, Federal military family are forced to move around in no small part because the Federal Government doesn’t want them developing loyalists or sympathies to any particular state/community.

In short they want to be able to uses them to wage war upon the American people if the need arises. This is ironically EXACTLY the reason why our Founders feared a standing army. And Yet our Federal goverment stresses the life’s of our military family to even further advance the opposite cause of imperial domination, rather then respecting the consent of the Governed.

It’s sick if you ask me.


10 posted on 08/25/2011 1:09:18 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

“Disturbing that 39% are clueless.

Which means they don’t do much thinking about the effect of government on their lives.”

Nor philosophy, why on Earth would any man be disposes to favor a goverment in which he has at most 1/300 million a share over that which he has perhaps only 1/100 thousand a share?

What is the difference between theses governments that they LEAST control, and can LEAST escape that makes them so favorable?

If you happen to be an authoritarian or otherwise Marxist the answer is obvious, but if you happen to be a patriot or any other kind of American the opposite answer is obvious.

I would at least 20% of our population consist of idiots who have no concept of where they stand in the world.

At least 20% of our population consist of compete idiots. The remaining 10-19% are probably Marxist crazy with imperialist dreams.


11 posted on 08/25/2011 1:30:41 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; Reagan Man; calcowgirl; All
>> On the question of which branch of government does a better job, 33% pick local governments, 23% look to the state level, and 15% prefer the federal government. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure. <<

Interesting, but not surprising when you think about it. The largest share of voters trust LOCAL government the best, followed by state government, and the least trust the feds. But funny how there's so many "states rights" conservatives on FR who constantly heap praise on state government and demand more powers get allocated to them. You never heard them talk about the 10th amendment guaranteeing more rights to LOCAL authorities (even though it does), or speaking about "LOCAL rights". Nope, they're convinced state governments are the greatest and most trustworthy level of government in America, and that every controversial issue on the planet can be solved if we simply "send it back to the states". I find that a rather odd position to take in this country, especially since many state governments are larger and more powerful than the national governments of other nations.

As for me, I actually have 5 levels of statist government over me:
1) Village/Town
2) Township
3) County
4) State
5) Federal

I'll examine of all of them.

1) Village/Town - Without disclosing where I live, I'll simply point out it's a small town in the Chicago area. Our local authorities in town haven't had a competitive election in about 2 decades and basically it's a one-party system. They aren't Republican or Democrat, they're combiners. This is a hard concept to explain for most non-Illinoisans. Basically the local government officials side with whatever party is in power at the time. During the 80s and 90s when the GOP ran Illinois, they all loved the Republicans, endorsed them, and worked for them. Now they all love Chicago Democrats. In 2010, I thought the GOP would return to power in Illinois and my mayor and trustees would suck up to the GOP again, but alas that didn't come to pass so they're still doing the bidding of Dems. The town has very little power since we're in the same county as Chicago with its 3 million people. On the plus side, they do seem to award patronage jobs like Fire Chief based on years of service and results, rather than nepotism like the rest of Illinois. So I guess that's a plus.

2) Township - The township government is run by Republicans, and closely tied to the local GOP organization (the GOP committeeman is a family member of the Township Supervisor). It's 90% GOP with a few token Dems who got to keep their jobs by being good little combiners and kissing the local GOP's butt even though they vote RAT in the ballot booth. Again in the 80s and 90s, the township was majority GOP voters, but since the late 90s there are more Dems than GOP in my township. But the GOP remains in power because the local RAT boss was a combiner until 2009 and had a backroom agreement not to go after the local GOP and in exchange they wouldn't run candidates against RATs. This changed in 2009 when a independent moonbat marxist was elected Dem committeeman and vowed to destroy the local GOP. Unfortunately for him, he tried to do so during the GOP tidal-wave of November 2010. Bad timing. The township government is of course very approachable and friendly to me since I'm a Republican pct. captain, but they are just another level of bureaucracy with almost no actual powers.

3) County - I live in C(r)ook county, Illinois, which suffice it to say is one of the worst county governments in America. Democrats have complete power and could get Adolf Hitler elected as a Dem in this county if they wanted to. Nepotism and corruption run rampant. There hasn't been a Republican holding countywide office in 40 years. There's four or so token Republicans on the county board, but they're outnumbered by the RATs 5:1 and have no power. My "representative" on the county board doesn't live anywhere near me, he's from some black neighborhood on the lakefront and ignores any emails or phone calls I make. I think the people of Castro's Cuba get better representation than I get in my county government.

4) State - Illinois is just an extension of the county government, since my county can outvote the rest of Illinois and they choose our state government. All 3 branches have a Dem majority. All our "statewide" officials are from my county (no wonder downstaters loathe people who live here) It's also extremely powerful, corrupt, and full of nepotism just like it's clone the county government. (being a super corrupt Crook co. official is warmup to a cushy state job). In 2010, polls showed downstate Republican Bill Brady was ahead and combiner scumbag Mark Kirk was losing, so I thought Illinois voters might finally come to their senses. 99 out of 102 counties DID vote for Brady, but alas, in my county they had thousands of "voters" nobody had ever seen before show up on election day, and they vote their combine approved candidates to remain in power. I wouldn't trust my state government if they told me the sun will rise in the morning.

5) Feds. Needs no introduction, the rest of FR knows the situation if you post on this forum. Currently, the House is controlled by the GOP, the Senate is controlled by RATs, the White House is controlled by a RAT bred from my state and county governments, and the Supreme Court has a narrow 5-4 conservative majority. By those numbers alone, I suppose I marginally trust the federal government more than I trust my state government... but as long as Obama is in the White House things aren't going to get any better. Plus the House of Reps. and Supreme Court don't seem particularly effective at stopping the White House's failed policies.

Given that data, of course I'd have to pick "township government" as the one that does the best job. Perhaps its just partisan bias. But it could also be that the township government is the one that govers the least and interferes in my personal life the least. In Illinois, 85 out of 102 counties have township government and there's been many calls to abolish it because it seems to have little to do and anything it can do could easily be delegated to the village/town level or county level and save taxpayers money. (see http://theinsidedope.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-do-we-need-township-government.html ) Right now, township governments in Illinois serve mainly to provide yet another way to climb up the political ladder and provide more cushy jobs. So, as much as I like the only branch of government over with me sane conservatives in power, I must admit they don't really serve a purpose in the cause to shrink government.

12 posted on 08/26/2011 10:56:41 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; Dengar01; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; randita; campaignPete R-CT; GOPsterinMA

I’m glad the city doesn’t have townships governments. Just imagine the shenanigans they could do with another unnecessary level of Government. It’s already absurd with County and City government, Chicago should be it’s own county (even better Cook should be it’s own state give it Gary and Milwaukee too and set IL/IN/WI free).

I don’t trust any level of government. Forget state’s rights, I’m for Impy’s rights. ;-p

ALL levels need less power. When one is screwing you over it doesn’t really matter to me which one it is.

Which is worse depends on who’s in charge. If we had a conservative-dominated federal government we’d only hear state’s rights clamoring from the left.

In some areas I’d love some federal domination. For example a federal ban on fey marriage, If Vermont doesn’t like it they can merge with Quebec. They also outta step an in enforce the 2nd amendment in Chicago and other gun-grabbing cities. Entirely constitutionally appropriate AFAIC.

I guess I care more about policy than process.


13 posted on 08/27/2011 5:53:33 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy
Impy,

Brilliant idea!!! Take Milwaukee and just cut a border from that maybe about 10 miles inland then go all the way to Gary and make it its own state. Hell Quinn can govern that and then Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana would be rid of voter fraud. There aren't enough criminals in East St. Louis and Carbondale to screw us over if we have the suburbs and the non city vote.

Also get rid of the needless construction. O.P. is completely a wreck and has been for over a year with construction so the stupid Mayor can build condos that no one will buy. It used to take 5 minutes to drive to my dad's house now I have to take 15 minutes because I have to go completely out of my way to avoid the construction. Makes me want to move back to Naperville.

14 posted on 08/27/2011 8:37:29 AM PDT by Dengar01 ("Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" - Dr. Michael Savage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dengar01; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Diana in Wisconsin; randita; ...

Original credit for the make new states idea goes to Auh2orepublican though I’m so strongly in favor of it that sometimes I forget it’s not mine. ;p

It’s a shame that such major reorganization of government is but a pipe a dream that most people would regard as fancy. Even carving out new counties or going to a consolidated city-county is a difficult process. Various proposals to split up Cook county have been made and never go anywhere. A state legislator in Cali proposed spiting the state a few years ago (this needs to happen, Cali is ungovernable).

There hasn’t been a serious movement to carve a new state from existing states since the Jefferson state movement in Northern Cali/Oregon that may have eventually succeeded if not for World War 2 coming along.

There a site that has calculated how this state would have voted for President. Mostly Republican.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/ContainerDetail.html?ContainerID=20993


15 posted on 08/27/2011 9:01:05 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dengar01; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Diana in Wisconsin; randita; ...

Forgot to mention the attempted succession of the Valley from LA to form a new city. It passed in the Valley itself but unjustly it needed the approval Los Angeles at large and of course it was thus voted down. The left in LA didn’t wanna lose those taxpayers, that’s the same reason Chicago would never let the Republican suburbs leave Cook County. I believe in local self determination, they shouldn’t have a say. Separating normal people from urban democrat sheep as much as possible would be great for the country.


16 posted on 08/27/2011 9:11:50 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Impy

I think the word you’re looking for is “secession,” not “succession.” : )

It was just last month that a county commissioner from Riverside or something proposed creating a State of Southern California from Orange, San Diego, Imperial, Riverside and San Bernadino Counties. As you may remember, I would prefer splitting CA into 5 states, 2 of them heavily Democrat (one comprising LA County, and the other running from the Bay Area to Monterey County) and 3 GOP-leaning states of about 11 EVs each (one in Orange, San Diego and Imperial Counties, another in the Inland Empire and Ventura, and a third in the Central Valley all the way north to the Oregon border). If the Valley succeeds in seceding from LA County, it can join the Inland Empire GOP-leaning state.


17 posted on 08/27/2011 1:49:23 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Dengar01; fieldmarshaldj; All
>> I’m glad the city doesn’t have townships governments. Just imagine the shenanigans they could do with another unnecessary level of Government. <<

Apparently they DO have townships on paper in Chicago, it's just that they exist only as obsolete geographic distinctions and there is no township government in the city (thankfully as Impy noted, because it would create a brand new layer of corruption and lifetime jobs leeching off the taxpayer's dime). Instead they just use ward organizations for corruption and patronage jobs (wards often don't exist in the suburbs due our size -- many suburban alderman are elected at-large by the whole town). That should be shrunk as well, the city of Chicago has 25 police districts so I think they'd get along fine with 25 wards that have the same boundries instead of the 50 they have now. If anyone is interested, here's a map of C(r)ook county townships with the city townships included:

>> It’s already absurd with County and City government <<

They should probably just do what's been done in Nashville and a lot other cities -- merge the city of Chicago and Crook county government into one entity, and give the suburbs their own county. Of course, even though Crook county creates staffs for the two governments and separate paychecks, they don't pretend that the county government is in any way "independent" of the mayor and city council. Our county commissioners obviously take their marching orders from the city officials and don't care a whiff about suburbanites. They don't even pretend to make it transparent -- the city council and cook county board meet in the same building downtown, for crying out loud. Probably the city council has their meetings and they sends someone over to the other side of the buildings to inform the county board what they're supposed to rubber stamp this week. ;-)

>> Chicago should be it’s own county (even better Cook should be it’s own state give it Gary and Milwaukee too and set IL/IN/WI free).

Yeah, you make a good point that we haven't adjusted state boundaries in 200 years. Most of these states like California were only allowed to be as large as they are geographically because they were never expected to have such a huge population. California has the population of 3 "normal" states and should be split up accordingly. And who the heck drew those lines to make Maryland/Delaware/West Virgina/Virgina. Our capitol area is a mess. I could make Delaware a nice, decent sized GOP state by simply giving the land west of the Chesapeake Bay that geographically is in the Delaware area but belongs to Maryland and Virgina on the other side of the bay.

>> ALL levels need less power. When one is screwing you over it doesn’t really matter to me which one it is. <<

True. Perhaps the one exception and non "lesser government" initiative I'd agree to would be enlarging the membership of Congress, though. From 1789 to 1913, the size of the Congress was regularly enlarged to keep pace with the growing population of the county. Now it's been stuck at 435 for 80 years and the number of constituents for each Congressman has grown to 650,000+. That's too many for a Congressman to adequately hear from and visit, so most of them in same districts (like mine) ignore vast regions of their district. I'd create another 100 or so Congressman, which yes means "bigger government" and more leeches off the taxpayer dime, but if we had term limits and ended gerrymandering it would solve that problem.

>> If we had a conservative-dominated federal government we’d only hear state’s rights clamoring from the left. In some areas I’d love some federal domination. <<

This is the one area that Perrybots don't seem to get it -- with all the "Perry has a fundamentally different view of state-federal relations than Obama... Perry believes in STATES RIGHTS". I wish they could have been around in the early 2000s and seen the state and local government of Illinois in action. Since Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, Illinois government woiuld routinely look for ways to get around federal rules passed by the Bush administration and poke their noses into all kinds of laws they had no authority over (look at all the "local governments" who passed resolutions declaring their city opposed the Iraq War... since when did the Constitution give city governments the power to decide U.S. foreign policy?!) The idea that Obama loves only federal power and would never dream of using state and local government to control people's lives is certainly a fantasy. Plus both Obama and Perry (and Gore and any other RAT) will revert to the "its up to the states" answer whenever they're presented with a divisive issue that could lose them votes if they gave a firm answer about. That's why both Perry and Obama resorted to "it's best handled by the states" when asked if they would support gay marriage.

18 posted on 08/27/2011 6:26:23 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Here is a picture of the guy that got the FedGov™ juggernaut rolling.

Also from Illinois.

19 posted on 08/27/2011 6:39:30 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: central_va
50% Believe Fed Government Has Too Much Influence Over States, 11% Say Not Enough

Isn't the percentage of black people in this country around 11%? Coincidence?

20 posted on 08/27/2011 6:40:37 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Psychologically many blacks moved from one plantation to another. I believe the percent of blacks is 14%.


21 posted on 08/27/2011 6:44:15 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Impy
Government was kept relatively small until FDR's presidency. During the post-civil war glided age of the late 1800s, most of our Presidents were profoundly conservative by today's standards and firm believers in private industry and traditional values. Calvin Coolidge (who was won over all the northern states and was opposed in every southern state) was most of the conservative presidents we ever had, even moreso than Reagan.

Then the great depression hit. FDR's "new deal" was known as "alphabet soup" because its record number of government agencies was unprecedented in American history. After enacting his socialist agenda, he received well over 80% of the vote in much of the so-called "conservative, limited-government" south, more so than anywhere else in the country.

A bunch of "our Republic is dead" freepers have claimed Abraham Lincoln "destroyed" our Republic in 1865, but then they also claim our Republic was "destroyed" in 1913. How was it "destroyed" in 1913 if Lincoln already killed it 48 years earlier? You guys might have more credibility if you could come up with a consensus date and stick with it.

By the way, Ronald Reagan (also from Illinois) was a huge fan of honest Abe and considered him a role model. His ancestors fought on Lincoln's side, not on the side of the "save slavery" fascist confederacy.

22 posted on 08/27/2011 11:08:13 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Warren Harding repelled the USA’s first dance with Communism ushered in by Woodrow Wilson..

Warren Harding figured it out in 1920...

Congress and the Executive Branch have lots to do.

So far they’re not doin’ it right..

Its been done before..

Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1319&loc=r

BTW..ole Warren ALSO fixed immigration...

Mr. Harding signed into law the Emergency Quota Act[3] which sought to control immigration following World War I and preserve the distinctive American culture by ensuring the majority of immigrants came from the historically compatible cultures of Northern Europe. This law aimed to bring wages of hard working Americans under control by limiting immigration to 3% of the 1910 census. It was followed on by a similar act in 1924, after Mr. Harding’s death.[4]

A Warren Harding prescription...if filled ...would ignite the afterburners on the US job machine and the economy. However DC would have to yield on a tremendous amount of power. Our job as We the People...is to persuade them of the “utility” ..shall we say..of doing so. In all probability the same minds that made the mess...aren’t capable of the solution however.

BTW any takers that ‘Bammy couldn’t even tell you that Warren Harding was one of his predecessors in office?

Even more telling about what our betters in the RinoCracy think of a Constitutional President..

http://www.usnews.com/listings/worst-presidents/warren-harding


23 posted on 08/27/2011 11:10:47 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
If the Valley succeeds in seceding

I've probably typed "succession" by mistake at least half of the times I meant to type "secession". ;d

24 posted on 08/30/2011 9:33:48 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mo; central_va; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA

I’ve become a big “fan” so to speak of Harding.

A bit of corruption is his administration doesn’t change the fact that all but 2 IMO (Coolidge, Reagan) of his successors as President make him look like he belongs on Mount Rushmore. He’s certainly no where near “worst” if you are looking at it from the perspective of a conservative and not a liberal historian.

As for Lincoln, I’m not a big fan of some of his polices but he had about as good an excuse as exists with the Civil war. Terrible time but most historians think it was unavoidable.

You should have Woodrow Wilson and FDR’s picture’s up there Central_va. No comparison between Lincoln and those twerps.

Just the other day I replied to some sophomoric idiot’s blog post saying how Lincoln would be happy Obama is President. We should make an effort to put a stop to the far-left’s co-opting of Lincoln. When I was a kid I went to the Chicago Historical society and the bint giving the tour was talking about Lincoln and Douglas and said today their parties would be reversed. She worked in a Historical society despite having a middle schooler’s sense of history.


25 posted on 08/30/2011 11:00:18 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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