Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollywood Star Embraces Incest ^ | September 12, 2012 | Ben Shapiro

Posted on 09/12/2012 3:41:36 AM PDT by Kaslin

This week, writer-director Nick Cassavetes released his new movie, "Yellow," about a woman having an affair with her brother. "I have no experience with incest," says Cassavetes. "We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want."

But Cassavetes wasn't done: "Who gives a s--- if people judge you? I'm not saying this is an absolute, but in a way, if you're not having kids, who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn't that what we say? Gay marriage -- love who you want? If it's your brother or sister, it's super weird, but if you look at it, you're not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you're in love with one another."

Here's the thing: Cassavetes is exactly correct.

There are those who say that gay marriage is a slippery slope toward incest. It isn't. The gay marriage and incest lie are justified by precisely the same moral argument: the argument that love defines an acceptable relationship. Sexual urges are, according to the left, their own moral justification -- what is biological is justifiable. If gays and lesbians are "born this way," why not incestuous duos? If consent is the highest value and two siblings consent, what's the problem?

This is an unanswerable argument for the left. It's why they resort to total emotion when asked about the logical distinction between gay marriage and incest. They get offended. They shout about how awful any such comparison is. But they never offer a single rational argument.

In fact, when given the opportunity, the left sidles up to taboo sexual relationships regularly. Nicole Kidman starred in "Birth," in which she gets naked with a ten-year-old who is supposedly her reincarnated husband. In "The Graduate," Dustin Hoffman stars as an annoying newly graduated college student who makes it with both mother and daughter. And it's not just on film. Roman Polanski, according to Whoopi Goldberg, never engaged in "rape rape" after he raped a teenage girl. Jason Biggs, star of "American Pie," enjoys tweeting about the anuses of prominent Republican politicians, and then he hires prostitutes with his wife, Jenny Mollen, star of "Crazy, Stupid, Love."

Hollywood has a high tolerance point for perversion. That's why it would be silly to see Cassavetes' stance as anything but the point of the liberal spear. After all, if two consenting siblings want to have sex in the privacy of their home, who are you to object? How does their love affect your relationship? And if Hollywood wants to show it onscreen, what power do you have to try to stop them?

Incredibly enough, Cassavetes truly hits on the problem in his little diatribe about incest. "If you're not having kids, who gives a damn? Love who you want," he says. And he's right. If relationships aren't supposed to be about the next generation -- if they're designed specifically for fulfillment of sexual desires -- there's no point to monogamy as soon as it becomes burdensome. That's why the divorce rate skyrocketed in America in the 1960s, as the view of marriage shifted from a child-centric one to a fulfillment-centric one. Marriage used to be about the other -- a spouse, a child. Now it's about you. And the Rolling Stones are wrong - you can always get what you want. And if you don't, well, you simply change up relationships.

Incest isn't the final stopping point for the sexual left. The final stopping point is pedophilia. All it takes is for the left to declare that children have the ability to make rational decisions about their own sexuality. Then the final string tethering Western society to her Judeo-Christian moral roots will be severed. And Hollywood will celebrate.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: again; gaymarriage; hollywood; incest; sexualmorality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 09/12/2012 3:41:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Remember this well... on this Earth... GOD gave us free will... if you do as these demons preach and “Do your own thing”... remember that in the end... whether you believe in HIM or not... GOD will be “Doing HIS own thing”.


2 posted on 09/12/2012 4:03:53 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("if it looks like you are not gonna make it you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad-dog mean" J. Wales)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
All it takes is for the left to declare that children have the ability to make rational decisions about their own sexuality.

Well, they've already started that by saying that young girls are able to make rational decisions about having abortions, and allowing them to get them without notifying their parents.

3 posted on 09/12/2012 4:07:17 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The homosexual left will push to lower age of consent to 16 nationally. Then 15, 14, ...

4 posted on 09/12/2012 4:08:33 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Charlie Daniels - Payback Time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Incest can result with the mental abilities of Joe Biden...
5 posted on 09/12/2012 4:12:57 AM PDT by Rumplemeyer (The GOP should stand its ground - and fix Bayonets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It is Hollywood and those “artists” who are always the starting point for these sick ideas.

Hollywood has long been a bastion of perversion, and they have been dopers, smokers ,drunkards, homosexuals and pedophiles for years.Now evidently their new kick is incest.

These are the people who support liberalism,and think they are privy to exceptional intelligence,because they can play people in their movies and speak lines written by others.

6 posted on 09/12/2012 4:13:00 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Too bad this fool is deciding to make a movie which he says he knows nothing about. Whether he does or nor; it is an idiot move.

7 posted on 09/12/2012 4:20:57 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Think Caligula

8 posted on 09/12/2012 4:29:25 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s really difficult to watch a newer movie without some sort of reference or actual scene concerning sex, condoms, homos etc let alone what this thread is about. Some movies have watchable plots, but when this sex stuff starts to dominate a scene, we turn them off.

We’ve rented several foreign films, and noticed the sex and foul language content is considerably less to none at all.

Hollywood has some very sick movies out there, some very sick actors.

9 posted on 09/12/2012 4:41:03 AM PDT by redfreedom (Just a simpleton enjoying the freedoms a fly-over/red state has to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Where did Adam and Eve’s grandchildren come from?

10 posted on 09/12/2012 4:42:15 AM PDT by TSgt (The only reason I have one in the chamber at all times, is because it is impossible to have two in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Incest isn’t the final stopping point for the sexual left. The final stopping point is pedophilia.”

Actually it isn’t. There’s polygamy, bestiality, and even the outlawing of heterosexual marriage in the future.

11 posted on 09/12/2012 4:44:34 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The Cassavetes’ have long been advocates of immorality, amorality, perversity and evil. They are attracted to such roles, such as in his father John’s case, in the movies Rosemary’s Baby and The Incubus (incest, sadism, necrophilia, demon rape and murder).

There is a whole sordid part of Hollywood of such people, and they tend to band together to make movies that cheapen and degrade humanity.

12 posted on 09/12/2012 4:58:00 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Anyone interested in incestuous characters, watch A Game of Thrones instead.

13 posted on 09/12/2012 5:08:49 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod

Actually they are already saying that children are sexual and who are we to deny it. That horse has already left the barn. Don’t hear a whole lot about it because it would upset the progress they are making in other areas. But make no mistake, it has already started.

14 posted on 09/12/2012 5:20:02 AM PDT by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
The homosexual left will push to lower age of consent to 16 nationally. Then 15, 14, ...

You're late to that party. Remember Grandpa Walton? His "partner" said the best teacher a 14 year old boy could have is a gay man.

15 posted on 09/12/2012 5:44:28 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlessedBeGod

And they have long felt that young boys should be able to prostitute themselves to older men freely.

16 posted on 09/12/2012 5:53:43 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This reinforces what I’ve said about liberals for a long time: the only kind of freedom they care about is sexual freedom. Like zoo animals, they don’t care if the government cages them, feeds them, dictates every aspect of their lives.... as long as they can have sex with whoever or whatever they like, they do not care.

17 posted on 09/12/2012 5:56:54 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Incest isn't the final stopping point for the sexual left. The final stopping point is pedophilia

And they're already headed down that path. Leftist authors are starting to float the notion that pedophilia is just one of many colors in the sexual-preference spectrum.

18 posted on 09/12/2012 6:16:20 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If Obama is reelected, America will deserve every mockery that follows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I offer you this as an answer.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) John 3:12

“If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things”?

If that is not enough then read this. I will not hold another trial to argue any of this. It offers several possib ilities and explains what we are and are not told in the Bible. Food for thought only. I still will stick with John 3:12.


“Cain’s wife:

We don’t even know her name, yet she was discussed at the Scopes trial, mentioned in the play and movie “Inherit the Wind”[1] and the book and movie “Contact,”[2] and has been talked about in countries all over the world. Is she the most-talked-about wife in history?

Skeptics have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the Book of Genesis as a true historical record. Sadly, most Christians have not been able to give an adequate answer to this question. As a result, the world thinks Christians cannot defend the authority of Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.

For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the outspokenly anti-Christian ACLU[3] lawyer Clarence Darrow.[4]

The world’s press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the biblical record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the biblical record is indefensible!

The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book Contact[5] (which was on The New York Times best-seller list), and the movie “Contact,” which was based on Sagan’s book, also used it.

In the book, the fictional character Ellie could not get answers about Cain’s wife, and other questions, from a minister’s wife, who was the leader of a church discussion group.[6]

Sagan cleverly used common questions—such as “Who was Cain’s wife?”—questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended.

Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions! And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are lacking in the teaching of apologetics,[7] particularly in regard to the Book of Genesis, most believers in the church are not “ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

Why is it important?
Many skeptics have claimed that, for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other “races” of people on the earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account in Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history—a record on which many Old and New Testament doctrines depend.

Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve)—as only those people who are descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain’s wife and show clearly that she was a descendant of Adam and Eve. (The relevant Bible passage is Genesis 4:1-5:5.)

Before we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel.

The first man
Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned (Romans 5:12).

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” God did not start by making a whole group of men.

The Bible makes it clear that only the descendants of Adam can be saved. Romans 5 teaches that we sin because Adam sinned. The death penalty, which Adam received as judgment for his sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants.

Since Adam was the head of the human race when he “fell,” we who were in the loins of Adam “fell,” also. Thus, we are all separated from God. The final consequence of sin would be separation from God in our sinful state forever. However, the good news is that there is a way for us to return to God!

Because a man brought sin and death into the world, all the descendants of Adam need a sinless Man to pay the penalty for sin and the resulting judgment of death. However, the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). What is the solution?

The Last Adam
God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam! The Son of God took on a human nature in addition to His full divinity, becoming a perfect God-man—Jesus Christ. In His humanity, He was a descendant of Adam (through Noah, Abraham and David)—He thus became our relation! He is called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head, and, because he was sinless, He was able to pay the penalty for sin:

“For since by a man came death, by a man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).[8]
Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the cross, shedding his blood (“without shedding of blood is no remission” Hebrews 9:22) so that those who repent of their sin of rebellion and put their trust in His work on the cross can be reconciled to God.

Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, except the God-Man Jesus, and we are all related (“And He has made all nations of men of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth” Acts 17:26), the gospel makes sense only on the basis that all humans alive and all who have ever lived are descendants of the first man Adam.[9] If this were not so, then the gospel could not be explained or defended.

The Book of Hebrews amplifies how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind (Hebrews 2:11-18).

Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.

All related
Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).

This also means that Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam. She could not have come from another “race” of people and must be one of Adam’s descendants.

The first woman
In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”[10] In other words, all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—she was the first woman.

Eve was made from Adam’s rib (or side) (Genesis 2:21-24)—this was a unique event. Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and one-time event as the doctrinal foundation for the marriage of one man to one woman.

Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he could not find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, at the beginning. There were never any other women around who were not Eve’s descendants.

If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including Cain’s wife) can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to answer the question about Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

Cain’s brothers and sisters
Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”[11]

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

The wife
If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!

We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

But what about God’s Laws?
Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

Biological deformities
Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).[12] (Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

Cain and the Land of Nod
Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16-17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain’s wife.

“And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain’s wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states:

“From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.”[13]
Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn’t find a wife there, but “knew” (had sexual relations with) his wife.[14]

Others have argued that because Cain built a “city” in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as “city” need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of “city” today. The word meant a “walled town” or a protected encampment.[15] Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a “city.” Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the earth by the time of Abel’s death (see below).

Who was Cain fearful of? (Genesis 4:14)
Some claim that there had to be lots of people on earth other than Adam and Eve’s descendants, otherwise Cain would not have been fearful of people wanting to slay him for killing Abel.

First of all, in the days before civil government was instituted to punish murderers (Genesis 9:6), someone would want to harm Cain for killing Abel only if they were closely related to Abel! Strangers could hardly have cared. So the people Cain was afraid of could not have been another race of people.

Second, Cain and Abel were born quite some time before Abel’s death. Genesis 4:3 states:

“And in the course of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord.”
Note the phrase “in the course of time.” We know that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a “replacement” for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the period from Cain’s birth to Abel’s death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children and grandchildren. By the time Abel was killed, there could well have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve, involving several generations.

Where did the technology come from?
Some claim that for Cain to go to the land of Nod and build a city he would have required a lot of technology that must have already been in that land, presumably developed by other “races.”

However, Adam and Eve’s descendants were very intelligent people. Jubal made musical instruments such as the harp and organ (Genesis 4:21), and Tubal-Cain worked with brass and iron (Genesis 4:22).

Because of intense evolutionary indoctrination, many people today think that our generation is the most intelligent that has ever lived on this planet. But just because we have jet airplanes and computers, it does not mean that we are the most intelligent. Modern technology results from the accumulation of knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

Our brains have suffered from 6,000 years of the Curse (since Adam). We are greatly degenerated compared with people many generations ago. We may now be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve’s children. Scripture gives us a glimpse of what appears to be great inventiveness from the beginning.[16]

Many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife because they focus on today’s world (and the problems associated with close relations marrying), and do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us.

They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their world view on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers.

Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery”.


19 posted on 09/12/2012 6:56:31 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("if it looks like you are not gonna make it you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad-dog mean" J. Wales)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I’m as sorry for those who see the Bible without science as I am for those who see science without the Bible. And I’m especially sorry for those who see neither one.

20 posted on 09/12/2012 7:43:47 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson