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

Skip to comments.

Should We Repeal Women’s Suffrage?
BernardGoldberg.com ^ | 8-14-12 | Arthur Louis

Posted on 08/14/2012 4:47:26 PM PDT by SJackson

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s newly chosen running-mate in this year’s presidential election race, is a strong candidate on many grounds. He is a brilliant man, a thorough master of government finances – which as we all know need work these days – and he is more conservative than Romney, which should appeal to the party’s skeptical Tea Party faction. He is a good speaker, and at age forty-two he is a generation younger than Romney — and also a good deal younger than President Obama – which might help the GOP connect with younger voters.

All this is just fine, but in watching the news today I also heard it suggested more than once that Ryan might be more popular than Romney with women. Romney, we are told, is an old-fashioned, milk-drinking square who wants to deprive women of their rights and privileges and send them back to the 1950s.

Ryan, by contrast, is a good-looking guy, tall and trim, said to have fantastic abs, and blessed with that enviable Irish charm. His line of chatter over cocktails might be off-putting to women – few of whom care much about the federal budget – but they probably figure that if they can corner him for a moment they can make him stop talking.

Many women, it seems, vote with their gonads.

When John F. Kennedy was running for president, hordes of young women invariably lined his parade routes. Theodore White, the author of the “Making of the President” series of books, observed that the women in the back rows would frantically jump up and down to get a glimpse of the dazzlingly charming candidate.

When JFK’s opponent, Richard Nixon, went riding by, not a single woman onlooker lifted a foot. Probably most of them were into middle-age or older, and suffering from arthritis and gout.

The people who run for president are not unaware of this female tendency. John Kerry, when he ran at the head of the Democratic ticket in 2004, chose John Edwards as his running-mate. I can’t think of any special qualities that Edwards brought to the ticket, except perhaps an ability to appeal visually to giddy, young female voters.

Bob Dole seems to have made a half-hearted stab at it when he ran against President Clinton in 1996, choosing as his running-mate the charismatic but slightly superannuated ex-football player Jack Kemp. I don’t know what George Bush the elder had in mind when he chose young Dan Quayle as his running-mate, but the ticket did win the first time around, although Quayle himself turned out to be a dud.

I don’t enjoy having to write this, but I think the time has come to limit women’s suffrage. The noble experiment that began when women were granted the right to vote in 1920, by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, has failed.

In the years before the amendment was passed, women’s suffrage was opposed not only by men, but also by some women. The historians tell us that it was opposed by married women who circulated in political-leadership circles, who had a behind-the-scenes influence on women’s issues with the decision-makers, and who didn’t want to see that influence turned over to the hoi polloi.

These women also argued that if women had the vote, they would want to impose prohibition of alcoholic beverages on the nation. Who is to say that they were wrong?

Those arguments aren’t the ones we hear today, but there still seems to be something wrong with letting women vote. The mere fact that they strongly favored Obama in 2008, and that they continue to strongly favor him in 2012, should be argument enough for some kind of reform.

I do not favor taking their votes away entirely. I don’t perceive any threat that they will re-impose Prohibition. But I wouldn’t allow them to vote in any election featuring male opponents, because they are too likely to make their choices for reasons that have nothing to do with the welfare of the republic.

I see no danger in letting them vote in elections where both opponents are women, but so far there has never been a presidential election in which even one of the major party tickets was headed by a woman. And there has never been one in which both V.P. candidates were women. So we are dealing only in theory for now.

I would even go so far as to suggest, in my even-handed way, that maybe men shouldn’t be allowed to choose between two women, especially in the unlikely event that one of them was good-looking.

Suppose someday a woman runs against a man for the top spot? Should we let women vote in that case? I would say no, because they unquestionably would vote for the woman for chauvinistic reasons, unless her male opponent was a fantastic hottie like JFK, in which case they would totally overlook the female candidate’s good qualities. No matter how a woman voted, it would be a flawed choice.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; election2012; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
Women who can properly prepare Irish children, I'd let vote.
1 posted on 08/14/2012 4:47:31 PM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Or bankers or billionaires, if you can cook them, you can vote. I’ll bring the pot


2 posted on 08/14/2012 4:48:42 PM PDT by SJackson (I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people people die of natural causes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I’d give up the vote so long as the government gives up taxing me.


3 posted on 08/14/2012 4:52:17 PM PDT by MeganC (The Cinemark theatre in Aurora, CO is a 'Gun Free Zone'. Spread the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

This type of argument only helps our enemies. Do women have the natural right to be free or not?


4 posted on 08/14/2012 4:52:59 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

No the question should be: should men have their votes revoked or end men’s suffrage.


5 posted on 08/14/2012 4:56:29 PM PDT by roylene (Salvation the great Gift of Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Maybe we should take the vote away from black Americans since they only voted skin color in 2008.


6 posted on 08/14/2012 4:56:54 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

How about ending suffrage for nontaxpayers?


7 posted on 08/14/2012 4:58:15 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

What a pile of bullsqueeze!

Just damn....


8 posted on 08/14/2012 4:58:42 PM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Oh, goody. ANOTHER “Wimmin R Evil” thread. I’m shocked.


9 posted on 08/14/2012 4:59:03 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Government doesn’t give rights.


10 posted on 08/14/2012 4:59:22 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The author’s argument is insufficiently defined. Universal suffrage is the real failure, not the 19th Amendment.

Heinlein’s ideas of distinguishing civilian from citizen and that citizenship must be earned is looking better and better every day.


11 posted on 08/14/2012 4:59:45 PM PDT by vikingd00d (chown -R us ./base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I think her husband is the one most suited to know a woman’s mind. Repeal the XIX Amendm’t and give married men 2 votes!


12 posted on 08/14/2012 5:00:36 PM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Shades of Swift


13 posted on 08/14/2012 5:03:30 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
How about ending suffrage for nontaxpayers?

That would fix a lot of problems.

14 posted on 08/14/2012 5:03:39 PM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oratam

It’s whimsy, folks. Lighten up.


15 posted on 08/14/2012 5:05:03 PM PDT by Walrus (Restoring America starts today! Let's roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

No, we should not, there’s really no sense behind the argument. Limiting the vote to tax-paying property owners and military veterans at least had a certain Grecian logic behind it, although I do point out that in Athens it was for a democracy, not a republic. Limiting it on the basis of genitalia is simply weird, and robs the polity of the direct influence of some of the brightest and most creative people in it.


16 posted on 08/14/2012 5:06:16 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You can be free and not vote. “Free” is relative.


17 posted on 08/14/2012 5:07:03 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

That would probably be the closest to correct. Property owners and taxpayers. Everyone else, nope. The people who are going to legally have their pockets picked, they ought to be the ones voting.


18 posted on 08/14/2012 5:08:46 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

If you have taken any government freebies (and have proven yourself to be a moocher), you have no right to elect those that will provide you with more freebies.

If you have committed crime, you have no right to elect those that will provide you with shelter and pardon. Once criminal, always a criminal.

If you are mentally retarded or incompetent, you have no right to elect retards that might think like you do or cater to your retarded desires.

If you have no paid any taxes, you have no right to tell the rest of us to how to spend our tax money.


19 posted on 08/14/2012 5:15:09 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walrus
It’s whimsy, folks. Lighten up.

Yep, sort of like a few years ago, when "The Man Show" did a "man on the street" segment with one of the guys circulating a petition to "End the Suffrage of Women", and dozens of women signed.

20 posted on 08/14/2012 5:16:28 PM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Some of the most vitriolic opponents of Sarah Palin were liberal women. So I’m not sure that Bernie’s analysis holds much water when he argues that “women will alway vote for the woman.”

Just listening to women talk critically about another woman (when she is not present) is instructive.


21 posted on 08/14/2012 5:17:57 PM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

This type of argument only helps our enemies. Do women have the natural right to be free or not?


Exactly. What the hell?


22 posted on 08/14/2012 5:19:36 PM PDT by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The women’s vote has been far, far, to the right of the Catholic vote since it started.


23 posted on 08/14/2012 5:19:47 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

END WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE - THEY’VE SUFFERED LONG ENOUGH!


24 posted on 08/14/2012 5:21:06 PM PDT by rhinohunter (DraftWalkerNow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (download links for whole document at bottom of page)

September 1998

University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 60
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, Number 6, Part 1, pp. 1163-1198, December 1999

Abstract:
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

25 posted on 08/14/2012 5:21:24 PM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Maybe we should take the vote away from black Americans since they only voted skin color in 2008.

96% for Obama as against 88% for Kerry in 2004 or 90% for Gore in 2000?

26 posted on 08/14/2012 5:22:24 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Walrus

It’s whimsy, folks. Lighten up.


I assume you have more than a passing familiarity with the enemy?


27 posted on 08/14/2012 5:22:38 PM PDT by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“Maybe we should take the vote away from black Americans since they only voted skin color in 2008.”

You racist! Just because 25% of black males have criminal record, are amongst the least educated group, and have significant percentage under welfare, it does not mean that blacks have been greater drain on society than any other voting block. Blacks have been oppressed by the white man for centuries, so it is natural of them to unite against the Man.


28 posted on 08/14/2012 5:22:58 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

To have no voice in your own governance is to be a subject not free.

Would you be free in a republic that denied your right to vote?

I would fight against such a system secure in the knowledge that it denied me my natural rights.

You might be comfortable as a subject but I would mock your claim that you were free.


29 posted on 08/14/2012 5:29:37 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

That comment made me wish for a “Like” button.


30 posted on 08/14/2012 5:38:16 PM PDT by Heavyrunner (Socialize this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

to vote, you have to pass a test about the candidates


31 posted on 08/14/2012 5:39:11 PM PDT by ncpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Well, my definition of free encompasses my right to vote.

But plenty of other people feel they are free whether they vote or not. That’s all I am saying. Stand down.


32 posted on 08/14/2012 5:40:49 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d
Universal suffrage is the real failure

This is going to be a great debate within the next couple hundred years - sooner if we have a massive economic collapse in the West. We are not ready to talk about it yet - probably not in our lifetimes, but it's coming.

Heinlein’s ideas of distinguishing civilian from citizen and that citizenship must be earned is looking better and better every day.

In the end, I think the real issue here is, we simply can not allow those dependent on the government to vote themselves more freebies. Yes, women tend to fall for emotional political appeals and that is a problem. But it would be enough to simply decide that a full voting citizen (man or woman) is only someone who is not collecting cash from the productive members in society. One day society is going to realize that the dependent class shouldn't be voting.

Definitely not an issue to discuss seriously right now though, any person or party that brought it up would be destroyed at this time.

33 posted on 08/14/2012 5:45:11 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Keep that a secret. And I even gave a hint.


34 posted on 08/14/2012 5:51:06 PM PDT by SJackson (I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people people die of natural causes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
How about ending suffrage for nontaxpayers?

Leaving aside the satirical nature of the article, in a 21st century context that wouldn't be much different than restricting the vote to landowners.

35 posted on 08/14/2012 5:52:13 PM PDT by SJackson (I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people people die of natural causes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel
Yep, sort of like a few years ago, when "The Man Show" did a "man on the street" segment with one of the guys circulating a petition to "End the Suffrage of Women", and dozens of women signed.

I'd sign, I don't want women suffering.

36 posted on 08/14/2012 5:53:34 PM PDT by SJackson (I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people people die of natural causes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Travel on then...


37 posted on 08/14/2012 5:54:55 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The writer of this article is truly a complete IDIOT.
My wife is more politically aware and more prepared to cast a ballot than 99.9% of the men I have ever met.
Most men I know are more concerned with sports than the condition of the Republic, if you were to ask them they would tell you we live in a democracy (mobacracy). Most men I have known couldn't tell you the name of even one supreme Court justice much less the importance of their jurisprudential philosophy. I do think there should be some intelligence requirement in order to cast a ballot, such as the ability to read and understand the Constitution of the United States. The requirement to read, understand and apply the Bill of Rights, (apparently Ostupid on The Factor cannot do this), I would rather my wife Cast O’Riellys vote than him.
38 posted on 08/14/2012 5:56:24 PM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vikingd00d

Agreed; but the intelligence requirement must also be contained in that scenario, I have known an awful lot of really dumb service folks. Of course that was back in the late 60s and early 70s when they were drafting any thing that could breath and walk at the same time. I enlisted in 68 and met some real dim bulbs in the Corps; and they were still very particular about the quality of recruit they were willing to take. A lot of them were busted right out of boot camp and sent to other services or the reserve.


39 posted on 08/14/2012 6:12:54 PM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

It is a fact that Democrats always win the female vote, so while I don’t agree we should prohibit women from voting, their voting is destroying America. That’s a fact. Women elect socialists in much greater numbers than men.

Anyway...

The serious answer to our problem is that freeloaders should not be allowed to vote. If you are on welfare or government assistance, you don’t vote. If you don’t pay state or federal taxes, you don’t vote in state or federal elections.

I would restrict voting just to those who own property or who pay state and local income taxes. That would solve the problem of the parasites voting themselves largesse from the public treasury.


40 posted on 08/14/2012 6:18:19 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Ending woman's suffrage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87U4ANfJRWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i1mLF3uMWw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1zy2MrsFM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_yUM3gtUFo&feature=related

41 posted on 08/14/2012 6:39:46 PM PDT by verga (Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I have always been against female suffrage - I am female - and I do so love the comment made by Alice Longworth: “any woman who can’t get her own husband to vote the way she wants isn’t worth much.”


42 posted on 08/14/2012 6:58:39 PM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
So are you saying Catholics shouldn't be allowed to vote? It really shows where your mind is at -- at the very mention of a given group losing suffrage, you start dreaming about taking it away from Catholics.

Your comment is false and unfounded. It is so easily refuted that I'm almost suprised you thought you could slide it by. More women than Catholics voted for Obama AND Kerry.

I suppose You'd of rathered T-Paw or some other wishy-washy phaux-protestant to Paul Ryan?

Go take a running leap at yourself, Jackass.

43 posted on 08/14/2012 7:15:05 PM PDT by Celtic Cross (The brain is the weapon; everything else is just accessories. --FReeper Joe Brower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Cross

Good Lord man, sober up, read my post, the thread is about taking the vote from women.

Conservatives say that kind of ridiculous bigoted thing because they think that women have always voted democrat.

I pointed out that women are far, far to the right of Catholics, and no conservative would ever talk about taking away the vote from them.


44 posted on 08/14/2012 7:23:08 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Romney /Ryan will do better than expected with women this year because they are better looking than Obama/Biden. . . . ; )


45 posted on 08/14/2012 7:28:56 PM PDT by RatRipper (Obama, YOU LIE!!! . . .again and again and again and again, ad infinitum. . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
The female vote was more republican than the male vote until 1964, and if the females had won in 1960, then Vietnam, the radical 60s, LBJ, and this immigration would have never happened.

Women voted for Nixon in 1960.

The white female vote is still republican.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

46 posted on 08/14/2012 7:35:42 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I pointed out that women are far, far to the right of Catholics, and no conservative would ever talk about taking away the vote from them.

Correction, as I said in my original post.

"The women’s vote has been far, far, to the right of the Catholic vote since it started."

Since 1992 females vote more like Catholics, and even slightly worse, in 2008 for instance Obama got 56% of the female vote, and only 54% of the Catholic vote.

47 posted on 08/14/2012 7:44:10 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
It is a fact that Democrats always win the female vote, so while I don’t agree we should prohibit women from voting, their voting is destroying America. That’s a fact. Women elect socialists in much greater numbers than men.

“If we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands.” 1910-Winston Churchill.

48 posted on 08/14/2012 7:50:17 PM PDT by cayuga (The next Crusade will be a war of annihilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’ll consider this historical FYI, as we both know that the overall female vote today is electing Democrat after Democrat after Democrat.

Here is how women voted since 1992

1992 Clinton - 45% of female vote
1996 Clinton - 54% of female vote
2000 Gore - 54% of female vote
2004 Kerry - 51% of female vote
2008 Obama - 56% of female vote

Women voters are clearly pushing this nation into socialism. The topic not even debatable. Not that Freeper women are, but the overall women’s vote is electing one Democrat socialist after another.

1992
Clinton - 45% of female vote
Bush - 37% female vote

1996
Clinton - 54% of female vote
Dole - 38% female vote

2000
Gore - 54% of female vote
Bush - 43% female vote

2004
Kerry - 51% of female vote
Bush - 39% female vote

2008
Obama - 56% of female vote
McLame - 43% of female vote


49 posted on 08/14/2012 8:42:48 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free

Of course I know those numbers, that is what I was posting in post 47.


50 posted on 08/14/2012 8:49:04 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 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