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

Skip to comments.

Maybe Roberts Got it Right After All
Self | June 28, 2012 | Alberta's Child

Posted on 06/28/2012 6:54:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 last
To: hoosiermama; EBH

The SC has shown us where we must go; back to Congress. Congress must remedy their own errors. But we can, must, be the impetus. For it to happen (to insure Congress “hears” us), we have to create a mandate. Now, part of that impetus may well be judicial action such as lawsuits. But it has to happen in Congress.


251 posted on 06/29/2012 7:00:35 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
but where do we go for redress?

Good question...but we need to stop looking around for someone else to go too.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And oddly enough this is exactly what Roberts told us, isn't it? Wow. Bad law can be constitutional and Roberts told us it is not up to him or the court to 'fix' bad law. That Right belongs to We the People.

The more I read and chat about this ruling...we have a lot of work to do. I think we need to move forward right now and get people registered to vote.

How many FReepers are posters here, but don't vote? We assume they do, but do they? Now is the time for a Tea Party voter registration drive. Somebody was talking about a 'rally' and I said we don't need another rally. We need action.

252 posted on 06/29/2012 7:06:16 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
but where do we go for redress?

Good question...but we need to stop looking around for someone else to go too.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And oddly enough this is exactly what Roberts told us, isn't it? Wow. Bad law can be constitutional and Roberts told us it is not up to him or the court to 'fix' bad law. That Right belongs to We the People.

The more I read and chat about this ruling...we have a lot of work to do. I think we need to move forward right now and get people registered to vote.

How many FReepers are posters here, but don't vote? We assume they do, but do they? Now is the time for a Tea Party voter registration drive. Somebody was talking about a 'rally' and I said we don't need another rally. We need action.

253 posted on 06/29/2012 7:06:29 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: EBH; bcsco; Alberta's Child
What are the floor rules in each House? Yesterday, when people interviewed kept stating “we have to study the decision” it appeared they were on to something.

If the Constitution says taxes originate in the House and in fact the Senate produced the bill, can they just as a matter of “rules” throw the entire thing out... on a point of order?

254 posted on 06/29/2012 7:07:50 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

The bill did originate in the House. This has been been hashed and rehashed ad infinitum. Spread the word so that people stop wasting valuable bandwidth with what should be common knowledge by now.


255 posted on 06/29/2012 7:11:08 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: kevao

No, it did not. The bill that was in the House had major criminal penalties tied to the mandate. Serious fines and jail time.

This wasn’t a situation where the House sent the bill to the Senate. This was another one of those instances that the Senate Bill went to the House. Backwards. There was not a reconcilation process...everything was behind closed doors.


256 posted on 06/29/2012 7:17:42 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Freepers are involved. It’s their familly, friends, and neighbors that they need the tools to reach out and influence. If not those close to them, then who.

FR mail your way.


257 posted on 06/29/2012 7:21:32 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: kevao; hoosiermama; EBH; Alberta's Child
The bill did originate in the House.

Not so fast...The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962)[1] was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009. At the encouragement of the Obama administration, the 111th Congress devoted much of its time to enacting reform of the United States' health care system. Known as the "House bill," it was the House of Representative's chief legislative proposal during the health reform debate, but the Affordable Health Care for America Act as originally drafted never became law.

On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed an alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).

Link: Affordable Health Care for America Act

Sorry, but the original House bill did NOT become law. The bill as passed was actually initiated in the Senate. I recall this from the debates here on FR at the time. It was part of our discussion.

258 posted on 06/29/2012 7:25:13 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

SO the reason 0 and Co kept insisting that it wasn’t a tax, was because they knew they could not lawfully start a TAX bill in the Senate. Roberts just trumped their Ace!


259 posted on 06/29/2012 7:33:44 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

That may be part of the reason, but the last thing Obama wanted, I’m sure, is to trumpet this bill, regardless of origin, as a tax. Now, it’s out in the open for all to see, and understand.


260 posted on 06/29/2012 7:38:18 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed an alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).

Harry Reid took a House bill that had nothing to do with health care, stripped out all of the language, and turned that into the ObamaCare bill.

Really, this has been covered before. Really.

261 posted on 06/29/2012 7:39:50 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

That was my first thought (after OH Shit) when I heard the decision. But many here and I’m sure other pundits were quick to shoot that theory down.

The Roberts reply, too me, seemed like a scathing rebuke to whoever wrote this steaming pile of crap, the Affordable Care Act. Not just wrote it but passed it. And that would be the Dems. So, it’s their baby and now they’ve got to defend the biggest tax increase in history. Not only that but Roberts made it much easier to repeal.

I’m sure with just a very little research that anyone who wants to know will find that the bill did originate in the Senate. As I remember the House didn’t even vote on the Bill.


262 posted on 06/29/2012 7:40:03 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: saleman

Why did Roberts vote WITH Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg? Sorry, I’ll stand with Scalia, Alito and Thomas.


263 posted on 06/29/2012 7:42:37 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

So he could write the opinion. (He out ranks them all.) It was a situation of “give em what they want, while exposing the fraud. Do you think Kagan, Soto or Ginsburg would have exposed the TAX, the fraud and turned the power back to the congress and therefore the people?

You’re not seeing the forest for the trees.


264 posted on 06/29/2012 7:48:02 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

What I see is that Roberts had the chance to kill it dead, and he didn’t do it.


265 posted on 06/29/2012 7:49:12 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

The fact that it’s a tax and it originated in the Senate makes it a slam dunk that it (obamacare) gets repealed, thrown out, overturned or whatever. It gets cover for Republicans cause the Lib Justices are on the same side as Roberts. It was ruled a tax because it is a tax. Just like plaintiff lawyers argued.

Roberts said “it is not our job to save the people from the ones they elected” or something very similar to that. What a campaign ad that will make. Run it everytime you have airtime.

Was Roberts decision right under the law? Probably not. But the reason, I believe, was the disrespect shown by Obama to the court.

Obama in a very short time will realize he has just been screwed. Roberts said, in effect, up yours. Was he right to do so? Again probably not. His ruling will make it much easier to get rid of this monstrosity. It may have been the only way.


266 posted on 06/29/2012 7:53:04 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: saleman
Roberts said “it is not our job to save the people from the ones they elected” or something very similar to that

HE REWROTE THE LAW TO MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! What part of this don't people here get? It was the highest form of Judicial Activism I've ever seen.

267 posted on 06/29/2012 7:55:25 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
If he had killed it the Rats would have been stirred up and out to the polls....As it is he's lit a match in the grass-roots. He's laid the blame on the inept congressional leaders who wrote and passed the largest tax increase ever and is asking us to again “alter or abolish” the form of government that abuses it's people through taxation.....Just as our forefathers did.

DOn't shot the messenger!

268 posted on 06/29/2012 7:57:24 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
HE REWROTE THE LAW TO MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! What part of this don't people here get? It was the highest form of Judicial Activism I've ever seen.

Repeating the truth over and over again doesn't make it true. Oh wait, yes it does. You're doing a fine job. Thumbs up!

269 posted on 06/29/2012 7:58:08 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode over evil. Voting for mitt or obie is like throwing your country away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
If he had killed it the Rats would have been stirred up and out to the polls.

But everybody here is telling me how unpopular ObamaCare is, so why would that even matter?

270 posted on 06/29/2012 7:59:02 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

It is not Roberts’ job to try to influence elections...his job is to interpret the law...THAT’S IT!!!! The SCOTUS needs to stay out of politics.


271 posted on 06/29/2012 8:00:08 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I saw this post on another blog...........

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s
numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the
commerce clause, was unconstitutional.

That’s how the Democrats got
Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical.

His ruling means
Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.
The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.

Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax.

This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax.

Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty.

Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax.

It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans.

Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding.

Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing
funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no.
If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by
yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty.
This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national”
health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities.

He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce
clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.


272 posted on 06/29/2012 8:02:18 AM PDT by freedommom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: kevao; hoosiermama; EBH

Read what I wrote. We’re saying the same thing only reaching a different conclusion. The original House bill (HR 3962) passed the House but was completely restructured in the Senate and their bill became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590).

HR 3962 (original bill) should have been amended by the Senate then sent back to the House for reconciliation, but never was. The House later adopted HR3590 (the rewritten, separate bill) that originated in the Senate. The House used the reconciliation process in amending HR3590, but it should have been the other way around.

The point is, the democrats used improper procedures in getting this legislation passed. On top of the fact they obscured everything by rushing it through, insisting on it not be read before the vote. The whole thing was a big head fake.


273 posted on 06/29/2012 8:03:53 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

Really? What part of the law did he rewrite? He just said it was a tax. And taxes must originate in the House. The bill as written originated in the Senate. I know some say no. I say yes. And the Republicans will say yes. And the Dems with all their machinations getting this passed said yes at the time. Now of course, they will say no, and look like a bunch of kooks and liers.


274 posted on 06/29/2012 8:04:29 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

For everything there is a season and a purpose.....

You play chess? Ever study war games? Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to win the game.

Freepers are on the rule not very patient, BUT there are new dawns breaking every morning...and being a country girl, there IS more than one way to skin a pole cat......

IMO the CJ is one of the few in DC that actually has a pair. History will prove him right in this move.

IOW.....The games not over till Soto sings!


275 posted on 06/29/2012 8:05:31 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: saleman
He just said it was a tax. And taxes must originate in the House. The bill as written originated in the Senate.

Then why wasn't it thrown out for that reason?

276 posted on 06/29/2012 8:06:25 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I’ll stand with Scalia, thank you very much. He got it right, Roberts got it wrong.


277 posted on 06/29/2012 8:07:32 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Maybe b/c the tax hasn’t been implemented yet? I can’t remember the court case, but some 1870s decision says that a tax can’t be challenged in court until it’s been implemented.


278 posted on 06/29/2012 8:11:04 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Because until Roberts ruled it was a tax the Rats could still claim it as a penalty. NOW because Roberts had the nerve to infuriate half of America, by exposing the fraud and calling it by its actual name it can/will be thrown out.

Taxes cannot originate from the Senate....Point of Order!

279 posted on 06/29/2012 8:16:04 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
calling it by its actual name it can/will be thrown out.

Why wasn't it thrown out right then and there, you mean to tell me that the SCOTUS didn't have the power to do that?

280 posted on 06/29/2012 8:18:53 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
You are correct a tax cannot be challenged until it's implemented because until then no harm is done. However, a bill passed by the wrong house of congress, under false pretense IMO can be challenged. Check mate all over again.
281 posted on 06/29/2012 8:19:11 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Exactly right. Robert has painted them into a corner from which they cannot back out. Brilliant. Soon enough the Dems will realize what has happened. And they will scream to high heaven. But, since their own Justices ruled....


282 posted on 06/29/2012 8:19:56 AM PDT by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: saleman
Soon enough the Dems will realize what has happened.

They know, they don't care, they'll just tell the dumb-downed electorate that the Supreme Court validated ObamaCare, and they'll buy it, and go back to watching American Idol....the people who actually pay attention to this stuff is a very small percentage of the population.

283 posted on 06/29/2012 8:21:57 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Oops, never mind, it’s in the post: the Anti-Injunction Act.


284 posted on 06/29/2012 8:22:54 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Under these circumstances they did not have the power, but gave it back to congress.

They cannot rule on whether a law is good or bad only if it’s in their realm of “constitutional”. In this case 0 and Co tried to pull a fast one, they manipulated the exsisting rules and law ala Alinsky and the CJ called them on it.....
Much better at stopping such behavior in the long run, then just slapping their wrists.....
and it brought the lying, cheating SOB who tried to tax us to death to the front.

Stop being mad at the messeenger and get into action to eliminate the problem....the RATS.


285 posted on 06/29/2012 8:26:51 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
However, a bill passed by the wrong house of congress, under false pretense IMO can be challenged.

You would think so.

The first question I had when I first heard this was, "Who is responsible for overturning passage of the bill if it was passed improperly?" Does it have to go to SCOTUS? Can the Speaker do it? Does it take Presidential action? Who?

286 posted on 06/29/2012 8:28:39 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I am trying to deal with my Roberts hatred, but after reading the ruling I think he is saying:

This is a tax. You can call it anything you want to. If you are all stupid enough to believe somehow that it isn’t (God help us all) then pay it and shut up. We can’t rule against a tax that you all agreed to. We can’t rule against a bad law unless it is unconstitutional and that is a big test. Fix it.

We can’t depend on the SC to conservatize our legislation.


287 posted on 06/29/2012 8:33:01 AM PDT by mom.mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; kristinn
Have been asking that all morning.

Who has the power to overturn a law that was beyond the perimeters of the Rules of Congress? Can it be voided? Resubmitted? Is it covered under “Rules of Order” Now that it is ruled a TAX by the SCOTUS, and was instigated in the Senate, who rights that wrong? Lawsuit? By whom against whom?

288 posted on 06/29/2012 8:35:50 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: EBH
Good question...but we need to stop looking around for someone else to go too.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

How about we use the tools at our disposal before resorting to violent overthrow?

289 posted on 06/29/2012 8:37:51 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; EBH

Just stop the quote at ALTER....that’s by voting.


290 posted on 06/29/2012 8:44:47 AM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; EBH

I agree, I’m just getting tired of all of these would-be Patrick Henry types sprouting up, talking about things they don’t understand and don’t have the first clue how to plan and execute.

We still have many options available to us. It’s not even close to being over.


291 posted on 06/29/2012 8:49:31 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
According to Wikipedia, ObamaCare was originally introduced as (emphasis is mine): "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009.
292 posted on 06/29/2012 3:37:40 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
I'll stand with Scalia, Alito and Thomas. They had a great dissent in this case. But theirs was really a decision for a different legal challenge against ObamaCare on different legal grounds. In fact, they can just change the docket number on their paperwork and use it again as the majority opinion in the next case. :-)
293 posted on 06/29/2012 3:46:16 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; dfwgator
Maybe b/c the tax hasn’t been implemented yet? I can’t remember the court case, but some 1870s decision says that a tax can’t be challenged in court until it’s been implemented.

That's exactly right. It's not just a tax, either. Any legal action has to be brought by someone who has the proper legal standing to file the lawsuit. And in order to have proper legal standing you have to be able to demonstrate that you've been harmed in some way by someone's actions. Almost by definition (since there may be unusual cases that I haven't thought about here), a tax that isn't implemented for another two years isn't something that causes harm today.

The rationale for a court to take a hands-off approach in that case is simple: What happens if the legislative body that passed the law in the first place turns around and changes it before it is ever implemented? Why waste the court's time on something like that?

294 posted on 06/29/2012 3:53:13 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Thanks, Orange. I’m honored to see some great discussion and debate on this thread — and even most of those who don’t quite understand what I’m getting at probably have more brains than I do. LOL.


295 posted on 06/29/2012 4:48:22 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
In the common vernacular, you are describing a “punt.” The judicial branch is supposed to be coequal, which presumes the justices fulfill their constitutional role with due diligence and adherence to their oaths. These standards are not met by simply punting the ball back to the legislative branch.
296 posted on 06/30/2012 8:00:18 AM PDT by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Bingo v

the kneepad crew spinning this are liars. Roberts could have easily sided w Kennedy, Scalia Alito and Roberts that neither TJE commerce clause or the tax power can force as citizen into commerce.

He failed.

FU GWB
FUJR
FUBO


297 posted on 06/30/2012 4:41:59 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 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