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

Skip to comments.

Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law (Original CBS Report)
CBS News ^ | Sunday, Juy 1, 2012 | Jan Crawford

Posted on 07/01/2012 12:16:38 PM PDT by kristinn

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold....

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

SNIP

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

SNIP

Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort - trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. There was a fair amount of give-and-take with Kennedy and other justices, the sources said. One justice, a source said, described it as "arm-twisting."

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudge; badlaw; blackmail; cultureofcorruption; defeatthemedia; illegaladoption; illegalinfluence; impeachment; johnroberts; judicialactivism; mainstreammedia; mediabias; msm; msmcourt; msmownscourt; msmownsobamacare; msmownsroberts; msmownsscotus; obamacare; obamascandals; obamunism; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-311 next last
Prior thread on Newsbusters article about reporter Jan Crawford on Face the Nation this morning.
1 posted on 07/01/2012 12:16:51 PM PDT by kristinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kristinn

He was threatened.


2 posted on 07/01/2012 12:18:57 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Some people just hate Americans and America although they can’t explain why.


3 posted on 07/01/2012 12:20:32 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Traitor. Pure. And. Simple.


4 posted on 07/01/2012 12:21:27 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Obama, the coverup king, has had his evil regime dig up some dirt on Roberts. They may have a photo of him french kissing a poodle.


5 posted on 07/01/2012 12:21:31 PM PDT by IbJensen (If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Early-onset Alzheimer’s?


6 posted on 07/01/2012 12:22:15 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

He wasn’t threatened, he was bought. He loves corporations.


7 posted on 07/01/2012 12:23:30 PM PDT by Jake8898
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

I really believe that the threat of mob violence and burning cities has many “leaders” scared witless.


8 posted on 07/01/2012 12:24:33 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

french kissing a poodle


Whoa..I guess he really is secretly a liberal.


9 posted on 07/01/2012 12:24:57 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

ObamaTAX, compliments of CJ Roberts.


10 posted on 07/01/2012 12:26:46 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc#t=55s


11 posted on 07/01/2012 12:30:33 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Heartily agree.


12 posted on 07/01/2012 12:30:48 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Where am I wrong here :

the Affordable Care Act has 300+ pages detailing how the US goverment will control and regulate the industry as well as force participation of the citizens in the federal governments regulation of what is a wide range of PUBLIC entities.

The governement regulation and control of public entities IN THIS MANNER is not authorized under the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause and certainly does not fit the enumerated powers.

I blame the five "justices" who did not do their job of interpreting constitutionality, but instead twisted a morsel of fabricated fact (that it is a tax contrary to what the content of the bill details) in order to justify their personal paradigm of socialism.

Even if it is in fact a tax is not their business, taxation is certainly at the discretion of congress. the issue in question was this ; does congress have the authority to regulate public entities and force the people to fund their imposition ?

it is exactly the same as if they passed "the Affordable Car Act", forcing a tax in order to make you buy a car, with 300 pages detailing how they will control each car company and how they will decide what car you will have , the fact that it is funded by a tax does NOT address the constitutionality of the act but is merly a deflection and dereliction of the duties of a cheif justice

?

13 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:02 PM PDT by KTM rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

14 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:08 PM PDT by Lockbar (March toward the sound of the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

15 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:17 PM PDT by Lockbar (March toward the sound of the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Time for Impeachment


16 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:27 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN


**Exclusive**

The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900724/posts
17 posted on 07/01/2012 12:31:54 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
He was threatened.

Or his family, to which I respond, "Lives, fortunes, and Sacred Honor," and all that crap, right Johnny boy? You did know that with high honor comes great risk, didn't you? /s

It's not like I haven't taken similar risks myself.

18 posted on 07/01/2012 12:33:35 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

The reporter on the Fox News panel from the Washington Post says “Roberts plays chess while everybody else plays checkers.” He notes that Roberts got 2 of the liberals to go along with him against Medicaid expansion and is reaping what amounts to “strange new respect” from the left as a “reasonable guy.” He claims that sets him up to be able to return to the conservative side in upcoming votes next year on affirmative action and some provisions of the voting rights act. Plus , it appears to me the left recognizes he really handed them a hot potato with the “taxation with misrepresentation” decision. Chrissy Mathews panel of experts voted 8-4 that Romney would be wise to downplay Obamacare , so that tells you Romney should do the opposite. So even if unintentional, Roberts is going to help the Republicans re-take the Senate and the White House.


19 posted on 07/01/2012 12:35:37 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“Obama, the coverup king, has had his evil regime dig up some dirt on Roberts. They may have a photo of him french kissing a poodle.”

Didn’t they already do that in order to get the super-secret SECOND swearing-in by CJ Roberts a few years ago?


20 posted on 07/01/2012 12:36:57 PM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Mr. Roberts is truly a cowardly man who should never have been entrusted with the office that was granted him.


21 posted on 07/01/2012 12:39:59 PM PDT by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
He was threatened.

"You have a nice family there your honor. It'd be a shame if anything happened to them wouldn't it?"

Far fetched? Think Marcy Park.

22 posted on 07/01/2012 12:41:20 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Correct. Regardless of his reasons, Roberts is a traitor, a man who values his legacy more in the process of selling out We the People, a man who should know what the stakes are in his position on the SCOTUS, a man who should have had the courage and fortitude to do the right thing IF he was threatened. But he chose otherwise, and now he belongs to the damned known as traitors.


23 posted on 07/01/2012 12:43:45 PM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
The reporter on the Fox News panel from the Washington Post says “Roberts plays chess while everybody else plays checkers.” He notes that Roberts got 2 of the liberals to go along with him against Medicaid expansion and is reaping what amounts to “strange new respect” from the left as a “reasonable guy.”

He claims that sets him up to be able to return to the conservative side in upcoming votes next year on affirmative action and some provisions of the voting rights act. Plus , it appears to me the left recognizes he really handed them a hot potato with the “taxation with misrepresentation” decision.

Chrissy Mathews panel of experts voted 8-4 that Romney would be wise to downplay Obamacare , so that tells you Romney should do the opposite. So even if unintentional, Roberts is going to help the Republicans re-take the Senate and the White House.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 12:43:59 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CaptainMorgantown

From all the “arm twisting”, it’s obvious Roberts’ decision was strictly political. What I don’t understand is if he was blackmailed why did rule it’s a tax? You’d think when you blackmail someone you can make him do anything you want.


25 posted on 07/01/2012 12:45:21 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

This is one of the most alarming things to happen in a long damned time. And I know every DAY there’s another assault on our liberty but this is really beyond anything.

...When Obama heard the ORIGINAL mis-reporting on CNN that it was overturned- he was “puzzled and surprised”....

...Roberts was red-eyed and upset while reading the ruling...

Seriously- what the HELL went on here?


26 posted on 07/01/2012 12:46:46 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

Put up or shut up, I say within the week Obama’s numbers are down and Romney leads.


27 posted on 07/01/2012 12:46:46 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

WOW.....this dude’s “legacy” is over, IMO. THe Supreme Court doesn’t leak like this normally. If his eyes were red and he seemed unhappy when he read his opinion on Thursday morning, it was likely because he knew the other conservative justices were done with him.


28 posted on 07/01/2012 12:47:25 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Here’s the chess: Roberts officially made this a tax. Well, when the IRS tries to collect the tax, the issue of procedural due process will come into play due to the waivers (equal protection), and the Court will strike it down then. But wait, the waivers have been issued, you say? True, but they don’t do anything procedurally yet.

It’s a Texas two-step. The “win” is illusory.


29 posted on 07/01/2012 12:50:53 PM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

So Justice Kennedy was the one trying to get Roberts to see straight? Where were Alito, Scalia and Thomas?


30 posted on 07/01/2012 12:53:18 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
They may have a photo of him french kissing a poodle.

I'd rather stick my finger into an electric socket than kiss John Kerry.

31 posted on 07/01/2012 12:53:50 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: piytar

Bottom line, the ruling hurts Obama. A rejection would have hurt him , too. But upholding on the commerce clause would have helped him. IMO.


32 posted on 07/01/2012 12:54:52 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Oh, ans as to why do this? Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now.

If I’m correct, this will all have ended up being a huge win for us. Bonus: Obamacare will be a millstone around obastard’s and the Demscums’ necks come election time.

Chess indeed...


33 posted on 07/01/2012 12:54:52 PM PDT by piytar (The predator-class is furious that their prey are shooting back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kristinn; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...


It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
34 posted on 07/01/2012 12:57:56 PM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now. If I’m correct

You are not correct.

The vote on the commerce clause argument was 4-1-4, NO ONE joined CJ Roberts' opinion on that (perhaps his switch was so late that there was not enough time), but Roberts' musings about the commerce clause had exactly ONE vote, it is therefore NOT precedent, and when the next communist is appointed to the court it will be flushed down the crapper anyway.

35 posted on 07/01/2012 1:01:27 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Anna Wintour makes Teresa Heinz Kerry look like Dolly Parton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law”

He found a horses head in his bed.


36 posted on 07/01/2012 1:02:28 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
“Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the Court out of the red-hot dispute. “

I guess we know where he would stand on eligibility.

37 posted on 07/01/2012 1:05:07 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2901219/posts?page=76#76


38 posted on 07/01/2012 1:06:54 PM PDT by mkjessup (Finley Peter Dunne- "Politics ain't beanbag")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner
So Justice Kennedy was the one trying to get Roberts to see straight? Where were Alito, Scalia and Thomas?

Did you read the article? Kennedy led it, but he wasn't alone.

As a final shout-out to Roberts :

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

39 posted on 07/01/2012 1:08:14 PM PDT by Girlene (Chief AHat Roberts - should resign in disgrace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Another lawsuit needs to be brought before the Supreme Court: Can the federal government tax a citizen for inactivity while giving waivers to others for the same inactivity?


40 posted on 07/01/2012 1:09:14 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort - trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy

A friend of the family who supported so strongly "conservative" Roberts after he had been nominated by Bush is one of those swearing to not vote because it's Romney and not a "conservative" running against Obama. He's still thinking his candidate will jump in.

He's been trying to tell everyone that Roberts did the right thing for the party because now Obama will lose because it's a tax.

41 posted on 07/01/2012 1:10:27 PM PDT by tsowellfan (http://www.cafenetamerica.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito “

My justice has a first name.... it’s C L A R E N C E.
My Justice has a second name ..... it’s T H O M A S.

WTF, Justice CLARENCE Thomas doesn’t get the courtesy of a first name along with Antonin & Samuel?

OIh yeah, he’s just the Black guy. The Uncle Tom on the court (sarc)


42 posted on 07/01/2012 1:11:09 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

“Bottom line, the ruling hurts Obama”

I agree, but Roberts should be impeached anyway.

The way I see it, Roberts was either bribed, blackmailed or tried to manipulate the outcome of the election.

All of these scenarios make him unfit to be the chief justice and we shouldn’t have to live with this mistake for another 30 years.

The bottom line is that the man is a traitor and I have less respect for him now than I do about the lib members of the court. The fact that after the ruling he ran away to his “impregnable fortress” in the Mediterranean clearly indicates that he is aware that what he did was wrong.


43 posted on 07/01/2012 1:12:58 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
My answer to another on yet another thread:

We're dealing with checker players .....They don't understand the sacrifice of a pawn to win the game. Mark my word something larger is in play in the near future.
During church today..at the alter taking communion...it hit me how often God has answered a prayer, not the way I'd asked, but it a convoluted round the barn, down the lane and through the woods kind of way.

If He'd done it my way, it may have met needs for a while, but by doing it HIS way much more was accomplished.So I have learned to let go and let God.

Just as I trust in God's will for my life, I will trust that for whatever reason, Roberts made a convoluted decision because he knew another matter needed attention and would need this sacrificial pawn to achieve it. It's not like he didn't tell us how to solve the problem....VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!

Did the judge just ask the US to divide the baby. Will the true mother of the child come forward? Will the country be saved?
Looks toward the Judges decision in the Bible...Even in the New Testament Christ could not have gone to the cross, and been resurected if the Judge had not done God's will.

Giving the power to the people to make the decision is Biblical.

44 posted on 07/01/2012 1:13:21 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying then or now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

I remember Pelosi predicting that Roberts would be the deciding vote for commiecare.


45 posted on 07/01/2012 1:13:21 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.”

Not a clue how he got pressured. Certainly it wasnt his waiting till his 40s to get married, when he realized he wanted to be a federal judge.
And it surely wasn’t his -Pro Bono- work to overturn to Colorado law excluding homos from EEOC minority status.
And it certainly wasn’t his friendly ruling for gay marriage in DC.

And i’m almost SURE that the dems never had access to his FBI file from when he worked in GHW Bush’s white house counsel office.

I think he was told he was about to be given the Cain, Palin, Newt, treatment. Didnt want to be the next Governor McGreevey from New Jersey.


46 posted on 07/01/2012 1:13:33 PM PDT by DesertRhino (perI was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.”

Not a clue how he got pressured. Certainly it wasnt his waiting till his 40s to get married, when he realized he wanted to be a federal judge.
And it surely wasn’t his -Pro Bono- work to overturn to Colorado law excluding homos from EEOC minority status.
And it certainly wasn’t his friendly ruling for gay marriage in DC.

And i’m almost SURE that the dems never had access to his FBI file from when he worked in GHW Bush’s white house counsel office.

I think he was told he was about to be given the Cain, Palin, Newt, treatment. Didnt want to be the next Governor McGreevey from New Jersey.


47 posted on 07/01/2012 1:14:17 PM PDT by DesertRhino (perI was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

Is Roberts trying to do for Obama what Ross Perot did for Clinton??


48 posted on 07/01/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by jesseam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn
Since the House controls the Supreme Court budget, is there any reason they can't hold hearings to find out what the hell happened? If Holder has to explain his decisions before a committee, why not at least hold a hearing to explain this constitutional train wreck?
49 posted on 07/01/2012 1:19:06 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kristinn

bookmark


50 posted on 07/01/2012 1:19:43 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-311 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