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

Skip to comments.

CALIFORNIA CITY FINES COUPLE FOR HOLDING BIBLE STUDY IN THEIR HOME
TheBlaze.com ^ | 9/19/11 | Madeleine Morgenstern

Posted on 09/19/2011 11:04:53 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.

City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.

“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”

According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: bible; biblestudy; firstamendment; religiousfreedom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-329 next last
This is why we fought the American Revolution, in large part to ESCAPE religious tyranny which prohibited free worship.

A violation of the First Amendment if there ever was one.

1 posted on 09/19/2011 11:04:58 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
Did they try to get a permit and were denied for specious reasons?

Are the permits expensive?

If they didn't bother trying and are whining now, they are exactly the sort of blight on the public face of Christianity that we need to avoid. What about being hospitable to your neighbors as well as visitors to your home? If they can't show this is specifically targeted against Christians then they ought to be apologizing for the disruption and annoyance they've caused.

2 posted on 09/19/2011 11:09:16 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

When it comes time to donate to their legal defense fund, I don’t think they will have any trouble getting donors.


3 posted on 09/19/2011 11:11:59 AM PDT by Made In The USA (This post may be recorded for quality purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

>>Are the permits expensive?<<

What part of the FIRST AMENDMENT do you not understand?

Your screenname is certainly a misnomer.


4 posted on 09/19/2011 11:12:41 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Are you insane?... these people are simple holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home.

Either this statute is being interpreted much too broadly or it’s patently unconstitutional.


5 posted on 09/19/2011 11:13:30 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Tell them its a Bible Study for illegals.

They’ll wave the permit, fines and even find a program to fund the study.

Probably provide a New 2012 Passenger Van , with insurance and maintenance, free gas.


6 posted on 09/19/2011 11:13:55 AM PDT by NoLibZone (Democrats are violent. Prisons are overflowing with democrats convicted of violent crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I’ll probably be in the minority here, but I don’t see anything wrong with that law. When I read the headline, I imagined a study group of 5-8 people and was ready to be outraged. But if my neighbor was having regular functions that brought 20-50 people (for any reason) to his house, I’d be upset because that would negatively affect the use and enjoyment of my property. (And I’m not a curmudgeon. When my neighbors have had parties - even the teen children - we’ve offered the use of our property for parking for their guests. But that’s only once a year or so - not twice weekly.)


7 posted on 09/19/2011 11:13:57 AM PDT by Kipp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July. According to the paper, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints.

From the article it looks like they never bothered to apply for a permit, even after being told about the need for one in May. They claim there is no loud singing/music which ought to make it easy to get the permit, I would think.

Sorry, but as I Christian I have much worse forms of harassment and persecution to worry about then someone whining "How dare they..." after they completely fail to follow simple rules and show thoughtfulness to others.

8 posted on 09/19/2011 11:14:03 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Are the permits expensive?<<

You obviously have NO UNDERSTANDING of history and why the American Revolution was fought, and precisely why we have the First Amendment.

In colonial days, you would have been a loyal British subject.


9 posted on 09/19/2011 11:14:30 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
What does the first amendment have to do with it?

They can say what they want. That doesn't give them an excuse to be obnoxious to their neighbors. You obviously don't grasp the distinction between LIBERTY and LICENSE. Seriously, I encourage you to grasp the critical difference between the two. Because these folks are demanding license, while infringing on the liberty of others.

10 posted on 09/19/2011 11:16:00 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

“Did they try to get a permit and were denied for specious reasons?
Are the permits expensive? “

From the posting:

*** A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain. ***

You seem to be taking the side of: “The rules are the rules”. Sometimes rules are wrong.

I bet if they were having regular sex parties drawing 50 people, the commies would leave them alone.


11 posted on 09/19/2011 11:16:54 AM PDT by brownsfan (Aldous Huxley and Mike Judge were right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Regular gatherings of 3 or more people?

Violates the right of people to gather as they wish.

A birthday party?

A large family?

Just how much control does the state or Federal government think they can ram down our throats?????

Time to check your ammo?


12 posted on 09/19/2011 11:16:58 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kipp

A year ago or so another couple in southern CA had the same problem, when it came down to it, it was all about parking in the neighborhood. The city was claiming they needed a permit not necessarily for the meeting it was the parking.
However, this city may be different.
I find it abhorrent (the permit) regardless how the parking impacts the neighborhood.


13 posted on 09/19/2011 11:17:32 AM PDT by svcw ( http://www.internetlastpage.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kipp

Another thread says that they have enough property to park everybody OFF the street.

Beyond taking up street parking, this is none of any neighbor’s business.
This is freedom of assembly.....& freedom of religion....


14 posted on 09/19/2011 11:18:56 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Sure the rules are sometimes wrong. But there’s no evidence here that these rules are unreasonable. It looks like they didn’t even make a minimal effort to follow them. That sort of self-righteous lawless attitude is contrary to Romans 13.


15 posted on 09/19/2011 11:19:13 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Proud to be a bitter, clinging barbarian hobbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

I could park at least 24 cars on my property. IF I am holding a party or something each week, it is none of anyone’s business.


16 posted on 09/19/2011 11:21:11 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: svcw
-- I find it abhorrent (the permit) regardless how the parking impacts the neighborhood. --

Change the facts ever so slightly, so the activity is related to a madrassa or mosque, and see how agreeable you are with the traffic of 20-50 people, not members of the household, twice a week.

17 posted on 09/19/2011 11:21:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: svcw; Liberty1970

Wrong. The fine was not about “parking” or “noise” or disturbance of any kind.

And if anyone bothered to read the article, you would have seen that it is not the issue.

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL statute reads as such.

City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is a violation of the Constitution, and Liberty 1970, at least, salutes it. Amazing how far we’ve fallen.


18 posted on 09/19/2011 11:21:55 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Just sounds like old fashioned zoning to me. Bringing dozens of people over multiple times a week does impose costs on neighbors. If you want to start a church, buy a couple acres in a commercial area.


19 posted on 09/19/2011 11:22:33 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
"This is why we fought the American Revolution"

We didn't fight anything.

Nor will we.

Brave men, real men, long ago fought.

20 posted on 09/19/2011 11:22:45 AM PDT by NoLibZone (Democrats are violent. Prisons are overflowing with democrats convicted of violent crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


21 posted on 09/19/2011 11:22:53 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Did they try to get a permit and were denied for specious reasons?

A Permit for free speech? A permit to permit the free exercise of religion? WTF?

22 posted on 09/19/2011 11:23:38 AM PDT by mc5cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

>>We didn’t fight anything.

Nor will we.

Brave men, real men, long ago fought. <<

Not sure what your point has to do with anything. Brave men and women are still fighting for our liberty. In spite of what the tyrants are doing to destroy us from within.


23 posted on 09/19/2011 11:24:21 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

What about everybody else’s rights?

San Juan Capistrano is an old, densely populated city with narrow streets. I guarantee they’re creating parking and traffic havoc.

Twice-weekly meetings with upwards of fifty people is not just having some friends over. They’re running a church in a residential neighborhood. Period. And it shouldn’t be allowed.

A church colonized in a house on a residential street near me, and it was a disaster for the poor people on the adjacent streets. The court confiscated the value of their homes and quality of life when they ruled that the church could stay, contrary to zoning laws because, well, Freedom of Religion.

Your next-door neighbor can’t open a Starbucks in their garage for obvious reasons. Why should they be allowed to operate a church?


24 posted on 09/19/2011 11:27:09 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

I said the other issue was about parking.
In this case it appears the city defined the group as a church and churches need “use permits”.
I disagree with that assessment. They have good people fighting this is court for them.
The other event, the city backed down.


25 posted on 09/19/2011 11:27:34 AM PDT by svcw ( http://www.internetlastpage.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

This is ridiculous. I used to go to the Old Mission for school, and home bible studies are NOT against the law. This is sickening.


26 posted on 09/19/2011 11:27:39 AM PDT by Karliner ("If we were real domestic terrorists, shoot, Obama would want to pal around with us, wouldn't he?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rippin

Just sounds like old fashioned zoning to me. Bringing dozens of people over multiple times a week does impose costs on neighbors. If you want to start a church, buy a couple acres in a commercial area.


WRONG.

Bible studies in hoes cannot be prohibited in and of themselves under our Constitution. This has always been the case, and it is remarkable how ignorant so many are about American history.

I studied this in graduate studies, how the British government pulled this same crap, limiting how many could meet in a house to prohibit religious meetings, and taxing them also (i.e. requiring “permits.”)

It is precisely one of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War.

That people sit by and watch our liberties curtailed and actually applaud it is alarming.


27 posted on 09/19/2011 11:28:20 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
No, not really. Folks who held religious services in their own homes FOUNDED what has become the United States of America.

Philippe I of Spain and Louis XIV thought they could eradicate them but they were wrong.

So, in my kind of country the GOVERNMENT has no authority to determine what is or is not religious ~ none at all. Should be a death penalty for bureaucrats acting on behalf of the state claiming such authority.

And, in your country, which is where?

28 posted on 09/19/2011 11:29:42 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

[ Regular gatherings of 3 or more people? ]

So if I decide to have friends over ever couple of days inthis neighbor hood then it is illegal?

Only in Commie Kalifornia.

This is all a Local issue, and the locals in Kalifornia are mostly Granola, Nuts and fruits.


29 posted on 09/19/2011 11:29:55 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
-- What part of the First Amendment do you not understand? --

There is nothing in there that prohibits zoning, for one thing. And zoning is essentially based on use and traffic.

Assume you live in some rural or suburban setting, maybe 2 acre lots. Then, out of the blue, your new neighbor, who bought the 2 acres next to you, starts holding daily religious services that draw 2,000 people. Can you invoke zoning, or does your neighbor's 1st amendment right trump you?

30 posted on 09/19/2011 11:30:28 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: svcw
>>I said the other issue was about parking.<<

From the article:

According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.

31 posted on 09/19/2011 11:30:46 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
We were among the founding members of a small church. It was in a small retirement community on the Texas coast. We were meeting in the garage next door to our house. Many of our members walked to services and a few drove. It was on a cul de sac with a vacant lot (we owned it) where people could park. A neighbor filed suit against us claiming it was not in the deed restrictions and a judge agreed. We moved to the only public building on the island a small city court house. The man who brought the suit later killed himself, I never learned any details and don't know if it had anything to do with his action against the church.
32 posted on 09/19/2011 11:31:16 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears; Admin Moderator
Already posted, and without CAPS. California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home
33 posted on 09/19/2011 11:31:42 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Will racist demagogue Andre Carson be censured by the House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
That doesn't give them an excuse to be obnoxious to their neighbors.

From the article: the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.

34 posted on 09/19/2011 11:34:43 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

>>Already posted, and without CAPS.<<

The reason for the CAPS is that I copied and pasted the exact headline, as we are supposed to do. It is ALL CAPS.

The reason the article is posted twice is that I did a search and it did not show up.

But this is a common problem I have noticed others have on Free Republic.

I hope the all caps title did not ruin your whole day. ;-)


35 posted on 09/19/2011 11:34:48 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink

It’s law. By right churches may locate in residential areas. Sometime local fascists get out of line and think the law no longer applies to them, but it does.


36 posted on 09/19/2011 11:34:48 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
“Change the facts ever so slightly”

Does the Purple Gestapo “SEIU” ever get fined for congregating in mass at private citizen's homes?

37 posted on 09/19/2011 11:35:31 AM PDT by LeonardFMason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

From the article: the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.


38 posted on 09/19/2011 11:36:03 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan
I bet if they were having regular sex parties drawing 50 people, the commies would leave them alone.
That would be correct. Similarly, if they were Muslims, no one would dare bother them.
39 posted on 09/19/2011 11:36:03 AM PDT by Antoninus (Take the pledge: I will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. EVER.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Free speech, free exercise of religion, free association, especially in your own home.

No permit required!


40 posted on 09/19/2011 11:37:13 AM PDT by READINABLUESTATE ((Most leftism can be traced to childhood birthday trauma))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Sorry, but as I Christian I have much worse forms of harassment and persecution to worry about then someone whining "How dare they..." after they completely fail to follow simple rules and show thoughtfulness to others.

I'm not exactly sure why somebody needs a permit to exercise their freedom of religion in their own home.

41 posted on 09/19/2011 11:39:25 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

This is probably why.

Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.

If it weren’t weekly it probably wouldn’t be so bad.


42 posted on 09/19/2011 11:39:42 AM PDT by Netizen (Path to citizenship = Scamnesty. If you give it away, more will come. Who's pilfering your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

It is if it affects the quiet enjoyment of another’s property, no matter what you are doing.


43 posted on 09/19/2011 11:40:21 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Ok, what part of the other family that had this problem last year as I state in my first point do you not get.
This family in this current post is having problems, city is siting use permits.
In the OTHER story about a family, the city sited parking issues.
Two stories, two different reasons.


44 posted on 09/19/2011 11:40:21 AM PDT by svcw ( http://www.internetlastpage.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

>>There is nothing in there that prohibits zoning, for one thing. And zoning is essentially based on use and traffic.<<

From the areticle: City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit.

PERIOD.

No mention of size, traffic, etc. Blatantly unconstitutional.

“Then, out of the blue, your new neighbor, who bought the 2 acres next to you, starts holding daily religious services that draw 2,000 people.”

Very weak straw man argument. The article says there are between 20-50 who meet twice a week.

It also mentions that parking and noise were not at issue. So another straw man argument.

“Can you invoke zoning, or does your neighbor’s 1st amendment right trump you?”

Yes, the First Amendment does trump the unconstitutional law against Americans freely meeting in their own homes and practicing their religion.

And history bears it out. This EXACT SAME CRAP was tried 200 years ago, and specifically rejected. Do your homework, study your own country’s history.

That is the essence of America. Amazing that some don’t grasp that.


45 posted on 09/19/2011 11:41:28 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

The very first word.


46 posted on 09/19/2011 11:41:41 AM PDT by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: svcw

My bad, I didn’t realize you were talking about a different case.


47 posted on 09/19/2011 11:42:36 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears ("But resist, we much...we must...and we will much...about...that...be committed." - Al Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home”

They’re called zoning laws. If you want to change them, fight them. Till then, ignorance is no excuse.


48 posted on 09/19/2011 11:42:48 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper; Netizen

From the article: the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.


49 posted on 09/19/2011 11:43:48 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
They’re called zoning laws. If you want to change them, fight them. Till then, ignorance is no excuse.

But in your case, it seems that it is.

50 posted on 09/19/2011 11:44:04 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-329 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