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

Skip to comments.

Savage: I agree with Justice Scalia that gun rights can be restricted
Michael Savage Newsletter ^ | July 31, 2012 | Michael Savage

Posted on 08/01/2012 7:06:33 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.


'I agree with Justice Scalia that gun rights can be restricted'

Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things "Savage."

In today's issue: No doubt Michael Savage infuriated many listeners, and pleasantly surprised others, when he declared that he agreed with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia's recent statement that some limitations on the right to bear arms could be constitutional -- and necessary.



Savage, himself a gun owner, added that laws restricting the ownership of certain weapons were not unheard of in colonial times, and he reminded listeners that "no freedom is absolute."

"Justice Scalia, the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and a hero of mine, says the right to bear arms could be restricted legally," said Savage, adding:

    And I agree with him.

    In fact, he must be listening to
    The Savage Nation.

    The day after the massacre in the Colorado movie theater, I went on this radio program and said that we conservatives should call for some restrictions, such as barrel magazines and body armor.

    Otherwise, the Left will seize the day and they'll end up banning much more than we ever would.

    Scalia came out ahead of it. He says the Second Amendment itself limited the type of weapons that could be carried legally.

    Even in colonial days, there were some limitations. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were restrictions.

    Scalia said, for example, there was a law that barred the people in those days from carrying a really horrible weapon, like a battle-ax, to scare people.

    And Scalia's right.

    We have to limit certain weapons, which we already do.

    Now some would say that makes me a liberal. You're wrong.

    No freedom is absolute.

Visit the Michael Savage website here.

Reviewing the book for the Washington Times this week, Brett M. Decker wrote:

    Dr. Savage's newest book, Trickle Down Tyranny, is a prime example of how his effectiveness is based on dirty details brought to light through research and his ability to tell a story. (...)

    Flipping through the pages of
    Trickle Down Tyranny, the reader can't help but question whether or not the majority of Americans have the belief in our founding principles and the fighting spirit to do what it will take to turn this mess around.

And remember: When you order Trickle Down Tyranny at Amazon.com, you save almost 40% off the regular value!



Thanks for reading The Michael Savage Newsletter.

Visit MichaelSavage.com every day for exclusive updates, insider info about the media's biased coverage of the Olympics, China's oil pipeline deal with Canada and more.


PS: Did you get this email from a friend? Click here to subscribe and get The Michael Savage Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox five days a week.


 
 
 
 
 




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist; shallnotbeinfringed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
More treachery from Savage.  Conservatives need to get the word out and boycott this POS's program.

I'll never listen to this POS ever again.  Gone.

1 posted on 08/01/2012 7:06:39 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Savage is huge flip flipper.

He’s always changing his mind on major issues.


2 posted on 08/01/2012 7:11:16 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Stopped listening to this arrogant a-hole long ago....he's just a bitter little man who is angered because he gets only a fraction of the audience Rush Limbaugh gets!!
3 posted on 08/01/2012 7:12:53 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Vichy Republicans.


4 posted on 08/01/2012 7:15:28 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

—I wonder what he thinks a “barrel magazine” is?


5 posted on 08/01/2012 7:16:13 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Yesterday, I turned on the radio at 6PM EST, and heard Mark Levin instead of that bitter, hateful, whining SOB, Savage, and I rejoiced at the local station’s choice, one that I have been wishing for for a long time, until the show was pre-empted for an Orioles baseball game. So, I listened to the streaming audio on my IPhone.


6 posted on 08/01/2012 7:16:47 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Savage is far more right than wrong on things, although he’s wrong on this particular issue. When he does get one wrong, his detractors shout it from the roof tops.


7 posted on 08/01/2012 7:16:58 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

No problem. When the “authorities” are barred from using full automatic or semi-automatic weapons against Obama’s subjects, and all criminals are disarmed, we’ll consider complying. The idea behind the Second Amendment was to be able to meet force with force, after all.


8 posted on 08/01/2012 7:21:37 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Well, that can be your point of view. But it would be wrong.

Scalia views 2nd Amendment issues the same way he views other Constitutional issues. He's very consistent. It may work for or against an salient issue of yours, but to say they flip-flop is false.

9 posted on 08/01/2012 7:22:02 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

chuckle...It seems the idea of a right has escaped our ‘learned’ friends. The BOR isn’t a series of laws (ie privileges) but an enumeration of God given rights, a declaration of limits on govt in relationship to the governed. Rights aren’t conferred by men. As such any man who attempts to limit or curtail them has overstepped their authority. Its not for men to limit or negotiate them away, we’re caretakers only.


10 posted on 08/01/2012 7:22:02 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Savage is just a self-important windbag. I’m not sure why anybody still pays attention to this guy.

From a strictly Constitutional perspective, I think Scalia is probably right — limited, narrow and reasonable weapons regulation is probably Constitutional. That it may be Constitutional doesn’t mean it is a good idea. It means it is permissible, not advisable.

For the most part, we’ve already won this war. Nobody’s even making any headway against us.

For instance, even 2nd amendment advocates prefer limitations on convicted felon access to weapons, access for those under 18, or for those ruled mentally incompetent. Most are OK with instant background checks. These are reasonable, narrowly constructed limitations ... and they are Constitutional.

Few (if any) rights enumerated by the Constitution are absolute ... there are limits on speech rights (time and place, libel/slander, threats, “fire in a crowded theater”, obscenity, intellectual property, etc). There are limitations on voting rights (no felons, etc.) ... at least theoretically. There are limitations on religious free expression.

I’m open to counterarguments ... but my kneejerk reaction is that narrowly-constructed regulation of weapons is likely Constitutional, even if it is a lousy idea.

SnakeDoc


11 posted on 08/01/2012 7:22:24 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
...and all criminals are disarmed...

I may have to take that back; the regime probably considers all conservatives to be criminals...

12 posted on 08/01/2012 7:24:09 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Both are 100% provably wrong on this point.

If they were correct then since the founding of this country no citizen would ever have owned a cannon. They have and they still do.

If We The People want to place limits on what arms are legal then a new amendment needs to be created and run through the entire process. The 2nd Amendment is completely silent on the number of bullets which can be held by any given fire arm and when the constitution is silent on something WE THE PEOPLE retain that right.

Thanks to scum lawyers and scum lawyers who became politicians and judges, the notion of We The People retaining anything the constitution is silent on has been buried by the ruling class who want nothing to do with our Creator Given Rights. You know, those are the rights we did not surrender to the government.

Maybe the Tea Party could REQUIRE all candidates to sign an oath to the American people and the Constitution that if they violate a single part of the Constitution they will promise to resign and if they don’t resign the Tea Party will refuse to support them and demand a recall.


13 posted on 08/01/2012 7:24:22 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

So, I CAN go scream ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater? The press can write whatever they wish? Thanks for clearing that up.


14 posted on 08/01/2012 7:24:22 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
He’s always changing his mind on major issues.

That's why I stopped listening to the man back in 2005

15 posted on 08/01/2012 7:25:29 AM PDT by tsowellfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Guns already are restricted. There is nothing new here.


16 posted on 08/01/2012 7:29:19 AM PDT by Titus-Maximus (Light from Light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

“Otherwise, the Left will seize the day and they’ll end up banning much more than we ever would.”

I generally appreciate the Savage POV, but he is completely wrong on this one. Setting restrictions in hopes of precluding the libtards from doing more or worse is simply wrongheaded, in the most damaging way.
The libtards would see that move as an admission by the originalists and other conservatives that the Second Amendment (at least) is subject to interpretation beyond its words. And, they would certainly make political hay out of that notion.

That is a slippery slope I would rather avoid...


17 posted on 08/01/2012 7:29:58 AM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

I agree, when the Government removes exemptions for itself from gun laws, then we can talk. Until then, I’ll own whatever I want for my defense and the defense of the nation.


18 posted on 08/01/2012 7:30:59 AM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
So, I CAN go scream ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater? The press can write whatever they wish? Thanks for clearing that up.

Well you can have an abortion up to the 9th month, without parental approval even if you are a minor, and without telling your husband. There are no restrictions on your Constitutional Right To Abortion, apparently, and it isn't even actually, you know, IN the Constitution.

19 posted on 08/01/2012 7:33:25 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Hey Savage (and Scalia for that matter)

Where in...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

does it say you can restrict my rights?


20 posted on 08/01/2012 7:36:33 AM PDT by cableguymn (For the first time in my life. I fear my country's government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

With all rights come responsibilities. The Founders realized this and assumed the populace understood the concept of self government. We may chose to limit ourselves out of courtesy, deference, kindness etc to our neighbor but thats our decision not the govts. The greatest loss in this is self government and once thats gone all else is fair game. That is, a corrupt and stupid people can never be governed, only ruled. Im adding this b/c it seems you dont understand the concept. Liberals seem to be deficit in this area.


21 posted on 08/01/2012 7:38:00 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
It is not the weapon which makes people kill. Those determined to commit mayhem will find a way, and the availability of superior weaponry will only affect the ability of the defenders of decency and Liberty to respond.

If you can store it, transport it, maintain it, and not be a danger to your nearest neighbor, you should be able to own it, even if you have to keep it in an 'annex' separate from the main house so it doesn't go off if the place catches fire.

During Colonial times, the 'battle ax' was replaced with the tomahawk, a device with utility as a tool and a weapon--and it was a fearsome weapon in the right hands.

Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders, the Tiffany Family gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower).

I do not accept Mr. Savage's argunents because they are without substance.

Were they more common, and thus more affordable, the only difference in me owning an M-60 (either the small arm or the tank) would be the amount of exercise I got when I went to the range, the amount of shooting I'd do, and the sort of noise I made there.

I would not suddenly choose different targets.

Oh, and (because I would not be the only one) the government would respect our rights just a tiny bit more.

22 posted on 08/01/2012 7:38:20 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Scalia used a qualifier— namely “carrying a weapon TO SCARE PEOPLE’
Founders had CANONS
Canons were on PRIVATE ships during the war of 1812
You might say what about TANKS, I say people OWN and USE PRIVATE PLANES which, might be used dangerously (a little sarcasm here)
The Second Amendment was about protection against an intrusive,out of control GOVERNMENT


23 posted on 08/01/2012 7:38:49 AM PDT by capt B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Levin does better research and is more informative. Savage reminisces.


24 posted on 08/01/2012 7:40:34 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

Levin does better research and is more informative. Savage reminisces.


25 posted on 08/01/2012 7:40:44 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

The two or three morons who frequent his daily thread here on FreeRepublic agree with what ever Wiener says.

However, if you want to hear a story about his dog Teddy or spaghetti recipes, then “Savage Nation” is the place to be.


26 posted on 08/01/2012 7:41:58 AM PDT by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

Just asking but do you believe the Deity has weighed in on federalism, i.e. The 9th and 10th amendments? My suggestion is that perhaps not all the rights in the BOR are endowed by our Creator.


27 posted on 08/01/2012 7:42:55 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Legalize Freedom!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

When you look at gun control laws, America has the strongest gun control laws in the world.


28 posted on 08/01/2012 7:45:07 AM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
"When he does get one wrong, his detractors shout it from the roof tops."

Your problem is that you don't see a pattern here. I have a normal ability to see things clearly, and it took only a few days of listening to Wiener to know that Wiener is extremely harmful to the Conservative cause.

What's your excuse?

29 posted on 08/01/2012 7:45:54 AM PDT by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lormand

The only pattern I see is that you’re still the vile little puke you were when you used to disrupt our threads a few years back.


30 posted on 08/01/2012 7:48:34 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
So your argument on the Constitutionality of the right to free speech and bear arms and all the others is, "I'm smart so I know what should be done, you're stupid so you need rules."?

It's true in all things that the few ruin it for the many.

31 posted on 08/01/2012 7:51:09 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
"The only pattern I see is that you’re still the vile little puke you were when you used to disrupt our threads a few years back."

I see some potential here. Now apply this same method (seeing patterns) to your Dear Leader, Wiener. Take note of all the non conservative things he says. After a while you may wake up and realize that Wiener is playing you all for fools. You can thank me later.

32 posted on 08/01/2012 7:55:29 AM PDT by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

No, youre no ‘just asking’, its a gotcha question and you know it. Read my posting, you clearly dont understand it.


33 posted on 08/01/2012 8:00:52 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Yes, times change. Firearms are not the same as in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was approved . Neither are life spans. When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, most people died before age 65, so Justice Scalia and his cohorts on the bench have no business serving till they are 90+. A limit of 70 years of age in the SCOTUS would be an even greater improvement for our nation than limiting citizens’ RTBA to 19th century standards.

What do you think of that suggestion, Justice Scalia?


34 posted on 08/01/2012 8:02:20 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Sorry Michael.
I can no longer listen to your program or visit your website.
The one and only restriction I would ever consider for firearms is that anyone convicted or murderm, armed robbery or any violent crime involving a weapon should be denied the right of ownership. No other restictions.


35 posted on 08/01/2012 8:02:46 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Repeal Obamacare, the CITIZENSHIP TAX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

Sorry Michael.
I can no longer listen to your program or visit your website.
The one and only restriction I would ever consider for firearms is that anyone convicted or murder, armed robbery or any violent crime involving a weapon should be denied the right of ownership. No other restictions.


36 posted on 08/01/2012 8:03:58 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Repeal Obamacare, the CITIZENSHIP TAX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Only morons listen to him. He is a showman out for a buck and always has been.


37 posted on 08/01/2012 8:05:09 AM PDT by free me (Roberts killed America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lormand

Savage is calling for appeasement. That is always a foolish idea when dealing with those who do not respect our Constitution.


38 posted on 08/01/2012 8:05:27 AM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

No, Im not saying that. Im saying that you need to apply self govt rather than centralize govt. Self govt isn’t about intellect, its about godliness. We’ve divorced ourselves so well from the concepts that discussions like this need to be undertaken to explain elementary ideas. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideas. Self govt was one of those ideas common to both Judaism and Christianity — Love God, love your neighbor as yourself. This is the foundation of self-govt. that the Founders understood and accepted — even the ones who weren’t ‘churched’. Central govt is about force, coercion and rule. It sets itself as god and denies His authority b/c it sees itself in that role.


39 posted on 08/01/2012 8:10:03 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

You can’t walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun. You can’t buy a cannon. You can’t buy a grenade launcher.

YES, GUN RIGHTS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED.

I want a fricking 16 inch naval cannon, pisses me off I can’t get one!

I don’t have a comment on Savage. Don’t listen to him. But gun rights are already limited.


40 posted on 08/01/2012 8:12:59 AM PDT by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Yes.
You’re liable for consequences though.
Too many confuse acts with consequences, and wish to punish the former without regard to the latter.


41 posted on 08/01/2012 8:14:13 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

42 posted on 08/01/2012 8:16:44 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: panzerkamphwageneinz
"I want a fricking 16 inch naval cannon, pisses me off I can’t get one!"

Me too! But I don't want muslim immigrants to be able to walk into a store and buy a surface to air missle. And I really don't want to have to buy a bazooka just to keep up with the latest fad.

I think we should profile and only put heavy duty weapons in the hands of people who share the same religious, racial, political views and temperament as me.

43 posted on 08/01/2012 8:21:25 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
Utopia was a few exits back. Welcome to Dystopia.

It's too bad that humans have innate qualities that go directly against those you describe. It's just not a natural state for us. That's why they have to be written down.

44 posted on 08/01/2012 8:23:05 AM PDT by thefactor (yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

You are spot on. If we “cave” by agreeing with Scalia in hopes that those on the left will meet us with a reasoned response, we are fools. Nose under the tent.....give them an inch...pick your metaphor. No good can come of this.


45 posted on 08/01/2012 8:25:57 AM PDT by Donkey Odious (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
I wonder what he thinks a “barrel magazine” is?

When you shoot so rapidly that your barrel gets hot and distorts, you'd be happy for a "barrel magazine"! Or used in a multi-barrel application, such as a gatling gun. ;)

46 posted on 08/01/2012 8:26:59 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Thanks for adding your sanity, against a lot of emotional Conservative-populism grounded in Utopian-idealism about “rights” that did not exist in practice when the Constitution was set.

And it is that Constitution and not our ideals about “natural rights” that Scalia took an oath to defend, which he does at least in his own positions.


47 posted on 08/01/2012 8:31:14 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer; SnakeDoctor

Here’s my position on Amendments 1 & 2 for what it’s worth:

There should be ABSOLUTELY NO debate about the Second Amendment.

(a) It is NOT about hunting, target practice/competitive shooting or protecting your home and family.

(b) It’s sole purpose was to guarantee to We the People a method of replacing the gubmint if and when exercise of the FIRST Amendment rights failed to resolve conflicts.

(c) Had gun registration been in place in 1776, the Brits would have confiscated them all, and today we’d all be speaking with British accents.

END OF DISCUSSION.


48 posted on 08/01/2012 8:32:32 AM PDT by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

You can’t walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun. You can’t buy a cannon. You can’t buy a grenade launcher.

YES, GUN RIGHTS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED.

I want a fricking 16 inch naval cannon, pisses me off I can’t get one!

I don’t have a comment on Savage. Don’t listen to him. But gun rights are already limited.


49 posted on 08/01/2012 8:37:33 AM PDT by panzerkamphwageneinz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

‘Utopia’ is here and now you just don’t see it. Jesus died for our sins and He gives us the choice to accept or reject that. You’re correct, by nature we dont seek God and require laws. However, He does call to all of us and its our decision to come or not.


50 posted on 08/01/2012 8:43:33 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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