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

Skip to comments.

OBAMA ADMIN PRESSURING JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR TO ALLOW CONTRACEPTION MANDATE
Catholic Vote ^ | January 3, 2014 | STEVE SKOJEC

Posted on 01/03/2014 9:09:40 AM PST by NYer

Sonia Sotomayor

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an order preventing the government from enforcing the Obamacare contraceptive mandate on the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Sotomayor’s decision to delay the contraceptive portion of the law was joined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also issued an emergency stay for Catholic-affiliated groups challenging the contraceptive provision, including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and Catholic University.

Separately, Lawyer Noel J. Francisco had said in appeals to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan that the mandate would “expose numerous Catholic organizations to draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions and take actions that facilitate access to abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization for their employees and students.”

In December of 2012, I reported that the Little Sisters of the Poor saw the very real threat of having to leave their apostolate in the United States if they could not gain an exemption from the HHS mandates on contraception and abortion coverage through the Affordable Care Act.

This morning, Matt Bowman brought to light the moral dilemma facing the Little Sisters of the Poor, and the reason why they can’t simply sign the required form designating a third party administrator to do, for lack of any other way of putting it, the dirty work for them:

Obamacare says that when an entity is in a self-insured plan, like the Little Sisters are, they must file a certification form. But it’s not like other certification forms that the rule requires. It does not merely express their religious objections. The form also, specifically and additionally, “designates” their “third party administrator” to go get the abortifacient and birth control payments. As I explained at Mirror of Justice, in a message posted by Prof. Marc DeGirolami:

The final regulation even points out that this added language is legally operative: the designation words themselves are what cause the TPA’s obligation to go get the coverage. Without the designation telling the TPA to go get that coverage, the TPA wouldn’t have any duty to be involved. … So it’s important to observe that for self-insured religious non-profits, there’s a “certification,” but there’s also a “designation”…. The designation is, by definition, an act of contracting and arranging for the coverage.

The government even conceded, in Cardinal Wuerl’s lawsuit, that “in the self-insured case, technically, the contraceptive coverage is part of the plan.” It’s not separate.

And yet today, the Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department is now pressuring Justice Sotomayor to dissolve her stay. They are, it appears, using the same arguments:

The Justice Department Friday called on Justice Sonia Sotomayor to dissolve her stay on the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The government says religious nonprofit groups can certify that they don’t want to provide contraceptive coverage. A group of Catholic nuns who run nursing homes sued, saying even signing that form violates their beliefs.

Government lawyers say the nuns’ insurance is a “church plan” that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.

This relentless pursuit by the administration to gain acquiescence from religious institutions which morally object to the mandate is nothing short of religious persecution. It would be remarkable that the most progressive administration in US history is also the most intolerant, if history didn’t show us where the progressive path leads those nations that choose to follow it.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antichristian; catholic; doj; freedomofreligion; hhs; holder; obama; sotomayor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 01/03/2014 9:09:40 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; GregB; Berlin_Freeper; SumProVita; narses; bboop; SevenofNine; Ronaldus Magnus; tiki; ...

Catholic ping!


2 posted on 01/03/2014 9:10:03 AM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Pressuring a Judge? Isn't that, like, you know ... illegal?

3 posted on 01/03/2014 9:12:25 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Again, they keep moving the ball and changing the rules.


4 posted on 01/03/2014 9:13:20 AM PST by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

She must have a very small file to blackmail her with if they haven’t bent her will by now.


5 posted on 01/03/2014 9:13:32 AM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Hmm, maybe we will get to see just how wise the Wise Latina really is. Or maybe just how independent the Judicial branch really is.


6 posted on 01/03/2014 9:13:46 AM PST by Tupelo (I am feeling more like Philip Nolan every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thank You John Roberts. All of this horror story could have been avoided.


7 posted on 01/03/2014 9:14:35 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This is something that should never be. The Supreme Court was set up totally separate from the "checks and balances" system.

I believe Madison said that was the danger of this court.

There should be absolutely no contact between this court and any branch. The court is unique.

And it was given a job for "life" so no one would be beholding for a job when they left the bench.

8 posted on 01/03/2014 9:15:08 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Obama: “Wise up, Wise Latina. Or else.”


9 posted on 01/03/2014 9:15:24 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Aren’t muslims exempt from 0bamacare for religious reasons?


10 posted on 01/03/2014 9:15:28 AM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
chief justice roberts photo: Justice  John Roberts Chief Justice Roberts.jpg

Supreme Court justices are immune from being blackmailed/cajoled...uh, nevermind.

11 posted on 01/03/2014 9:16:27 AM PST by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I suspect that Sotomayor is allowing this because it is advantageous to the administration to do so.

I don't know what the end game is but I just don't believe the wise latina would jump ship on this issue at this time.

12 posted on 01/03/2014 9:17:53 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
First of all....4 others signed off with John Roberts.

Secondly, it shows what a mess this grand plan is, was and will always be. It will lead to it being abolished. It needs to be reversed "FOREVER" just as prohibition was reversed...by a Constitutional amendment.

13 posted on 01/03/2014 9:19:39 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
I don't know what the end game is but I just don't believe the wise latina would jump ship on this issue at this time.

I agree. I think this is just smoke and mirrors.

14 posted on 01/03/2014 9:19:56 AM PST by greyfoxx39 (We can thank Mitt Romney for the present situation in our country. His feet are made of clay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

One of the realities of living in our divided and rabidly partisan world is that once normal actions are exaggerated greatly into heinous acts. This is true of both left and right. The DoJ is responding to Sotomayor’s TRO. They are making a legal argument,a preposterous one but it’s their argument. Responding to a judge’s ruling is not in any way “pressuring” the judge. Are there pressures being applied behind closed doors? Maybe. But it’s not what this article is talking about.


15 posted on 01/03/2014 9:20:53 AM PST by xkaydet65 (.You have never tasted freedom, else you would know it is purchased not with gold but with steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

It’s paperwork only...strictly procedural. Has nothing to do with her position.


16 posted on 01/03/2014 9:21:06 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Given that she was nominated by the demonstrably most idiotic president we’ve ever had, I had absolutely no respect for her.

However, she may have a bit more cojones (and undoubtedly more intelligence) than the DORK in chief.

Perhaps she’ll make a good justice after all.


17 posted on 01/03/2014 9:22:01 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1
Pressuring a Judge? Isn't that, like, you know ... illegal?

This article is rather misleading in this one respect. The Obama Administration isn't "pressuring" Justice Sotomayor. When Justice Sotomayor issued the order in question, granting the temporary injunction, she requested that the Department of Justice file by today a written response, to the extent that Justice was arguing against the continuation of the injunction.

The Department of Justice has now filed its response, per Justice Sotomayor's request, that's all. That's how the process is supposed to work.

18 posted on 01/03/2014 9:22:10 AM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

Is that true? Anyone have a source?


19 posted on 01/03/2014 9:23:02 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

She appears to have a fondness for Catholic nuns. I wonder how easily that can be intimidated out of her.


20 posted on 01/03/2014 9:23:03 AM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

How do they do that? SCOTUS is a completely separate branch.


21 posted on 01/03/2014 9:25:43 AM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
No one dare speaketh of what should be front page headlines - that Obama's health insurance law has been nullified because he has changed it without going through the proper Constitutional channel appropriated by law.

If he isn't the lawless one I will eat my hat and the crow that sits in it.

22 posted on 01/03/2014 9:30:55 AM PST by Slyfox (We want our pre-existing HEALTH INSURANCE back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1
Pressuring a Judge? Isn't that, like, you know ... illegal?

Obama is probably just applying the same methods he used on Justice Roberts. Hey, it worked once. Might as well go for two.

23 posted on 01/03/2014 9:31:27 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1; NYer

Pressuring a judge...illegal? Not in the post-Constitutional regency of bh0, where his diktat is law.


24 posted on 01/03/2014 9:32:39 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

“... It needs to be reversed “FOREVER” just as prohibition was reversed...by a Constitutional amendment.”

::::::::::::

Yes, it does, and post haste. This legislative horror story needs to be prevented in the future, and severe penalties need to be put into place for the OBVIOUS law breakers and for those deliberately working to support political agendas as opposed to working FOR the people. The breaking of the Presidential Oath should be a major felony in my opinion.


25 posted on 01/03/2014 9:35:31 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

“If he isn’t the lawless one I will eat my hat and the crow that sits in it.”

He’s one of them, I believe. THE one? For whatever reason, my sense is no. I imagine someone worse appearing, someone able to fool most of the other half who hate Obama.


26 posted on 01/03/2014 9:39:02 AM PST by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: avenir

Time will tell.


27 posted on 01/03/2014 9:41:49 AM PST by Slyfox (We want our pre-existing HEALTH INSURANCE back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer

28 posted on 01/03/2014 9:42:21 AM PST by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
Aren’t muslims exempt from 0bamacare for religious reasons?

There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance is “haraam”, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.

Source
29 posted on 01/03/2014 9:42:21 AM PST by NYer ("The wise man is the one who can save his soul. - St. Nimatullah Al-Hardini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Those NRA files sure are a boon for a “Chicago Way” tyrant.


30 posted on 01/03/2014 9:44:37 AM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
Re Muslims exempt from Obamacare, it seems as though they are not explicitly exempted.

From Forbes:

Your “sect” has to have been in continuous existence since December 31, 1950, and the Commissioner of Social Security must agree that your sect “has the established tenets or teachings” consistent with opposition to medical benefits. While there are some on the Internet who believe that this religious exemption applies to Islam, it doesn’t appear that way to me, as Muslims are not exempt from Social Security. Instead, the exemption is meant for groups like the Amish.

--- end of snip ---

The bottom line is that it all depends on how some regulator interprets the ACA rules.

Article's address:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/white-house-publishes-final-regulations-for-obamacares-individual-mandate-seven-things-you-need-to-know/

31 posted on 01/03/2014 9:47:17 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

Wasn’t there a rumor going around that he is gay?...........


32 posted on 01/03/2014 9:49:10 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Wonder if the hero of Benghazi has ruled on this? Peace be upon him!


33 posted on 01/03/2014 9:50:41 AM PST by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Perhaps the season has caused her to reflect and then fear for her immortal soul. Or not.


34 posted on 01/03/2014 9:51:12 AM PST by MWestMom (We are not designed to sacrifice for the state, we were designed to sacrifice for each other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is pure political theater. There has never been and will never be any doubt that the Sotomizor IS obama, want exactly the same thing and are going through the process of implementation in a way they feel will hurt them the least.


35 posted on 01/03/2014 9:54:24 AM PST by Track9 (hey Kalid.. kalid.. bang you're dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

An argument could certainly be made comparing John Roberts to the most treacherous of American traitors.


36 posted on 01/03/2014 9:55:50 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

It would be quite an irony if Sotomayor turned out to be Obama’s Earl Warren. Eisenhower appointed Warren thinking that he was appointing a rational jurist, only to find out that he had appointed an unprincipled left-wing tyrant with no respect for the law or the Constitution. Obama appointed Sotomayor thinking he was appointing an unprincipled left-wing tyrant. How ironic if it were to turn out that she actually respects the law and the Constitution.


37 posted on 01/03/2014 9:57:29 AM PST by T Ruth (Islam shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This relentless pursuit by the administration to gain acquiescence from religious institutions which morally object to the mandate is nothing short of religious persecution.

I am not a fan of Sotomayor, but she is in my prayers today ... prayers that God will give her the strength to stand up to the evil that is the Obama Administration. They are the Devil's thugs, determined that people of God will forsake their God and instead will bend their knee to the government.

38 posted on 01/03/2014 9:59:22 AM PST by MissMagnolia (You see, truth always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition. I pick truth. (John Ransom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Wouldn’t it be easier if Holder just sent a couple of his homies over to her house with some pliers and a blowtorch?


39 posted on 01/03/2014 10:02:08 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DownInFlames
How do they do that? SCOTUS is a completely separate branch.

"John! How are you? Kids doing well? Jack, and...Josie? Good! Good! Listen, I need a favor. Talk to Sonia for me, OK? Tell her we've got some interesting things we'd like to discuss with her. Compensation? Sure! Sure! You know we take care of our own, right John? Excellent! Talk to you later! Bye!"


40 posted on 01/03/2014 10:02:38 AM PST by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
She must have a very small file to blackmail her with if they haven’t bent her will by now.

It is not difficult to believe that the NSA had, and used, the goods on John Roberts.

41 posted on 01/03/2014 10:07:44 AM PST by bkopto (Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DSH

thanks for clearing it up....


42 posted on 01/03/2014 10:12:27 AM PST by God luvs America (63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

Do not also forget about Roberts all thought HE was a constitutionalist
juror and look what happened! Do not also forget the Catholic Church
was totally behind this health care law UNTIL THEY got bitten by the
fleas from the dog they laid down with! I believe Sotomayor is probably
a Catholic first, Catholic church BELIEVES in social justice, just not
birth control! I am Catholic and have many ill feeling where the church is
concerned!


43 posted on 01/03/2014 10:15:27 AM PST by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NYer

OBAMACARE IS ANOTHER OF OBAMA’S HIDEOUS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE POLICY ON ABORTION.

“Obama, the man who is carrying out the slaughter of the innocents with the same enthusiasm as Herod and Pharaoh calls for us to find a way to live together as one human family. “

THE BLOWBACK OF NOTRE DAME

Exclusive: Joseph Farah flays Obama
for lecturing Catholics about abortion

May 18, 2009
By Joseph Farah
________________________________________
As if to rub salt in the wound opened by Notre Dame’s invitation to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree yesterday, Barack Obama lectured Catholics about abortion.

He said it’s time for common ground on the issue and an approach to the life-and-death debate with “open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words.”

I suppose that’s understandable.

If I were presiding over a public policy that called for the murder of unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all, that provided mandatory public funding of those procedures both domestically and in foreign countries, that required doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they were conscientiously opposed, that permitted experimentations on living human embryos, that promoted even partial-birth abortions outside the womb and that called for the extermination of infants who somehow defied all the odds and managed to survive efforts to kill them before birth, I guess I would want to frame the debate in such a way as to diminish the hideous monstrousness of my morally indefensible.

He doesn’t really want people who recognize what abortion is to approach the debate with “open hearts.” He wants us to harden our hearts.

We won’t do that.

The only hearts and minds being opened in this debate and the hearts and minds of little innocents – sliced open surgically in the most barbaric fashion because of activist judges exceeding their authority and morally bankrupt politicians like Obama and his cohorts in the Congress.

These are the most “fair-minded words” I can muster to describe Obama’s efforts at soft-pedaling his own bloody and extremist policies on abortion.

Obama said: “Each side will continue to makes its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Let me translate this for you.

“Now that my side in this debate is in control of all the levers of power and is enforcing its will on the other side, it’s time for a nice civil dialogue on abortion.”
That’s what Obama would like.

Let me be the first to say, “No way, buster!”

You want to kill babies? You’re going to have to accept the consequences of righteous moral indignation. You’re going to have to accept being called out for what you are doing. You’re going to have to accept the conviction that comes with the abomination of child sacrifice. Your going to have to accept being labeled for what you are.

Obama even acknowledged he knows what this debate is all about – characterizing abortion as a “heart-wrenching” decision for any woman.

Why is abortion a “heart-wrenching” decision for a mother?
Because it’s a decision to kill one’s child – materialistic reasons, for reasons of convenience.

It should be “heart-wrenching” to decide to kill one’s child.

Obama’s policies are meant to remove the guilt, remove the consequences of irresponsible decisions, remove the issue of right and wrong, remove even the “choice” of those who disagree with him not to participate in any way in the slaughter at the altar of Baal.

“We must find a way to live together as one human family,” he said in closing.

That’s quite a statement.

The man who is carrying out the slaughter of the innocents with the same enthusiasm as Herod and Pharaoh calls for us to find a way to live together as one human family.

How do we learn to live together as one human family when our offspring are being sacrificed to false gods and man-made religions?

How do we learn to live together as one human family when it means accepting coercion into active participation in the worst kind of evil perversion?

How does one live with oneself if it means tolerance of the intolerable?

No, I won’t play that game.
No, I won’t play by Obama’s rules.


44 posted on 01/03/2014 10:15:30 AM PST by Dqban22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
This is something that should never be.

Agreed. If Obama's Justice Department has a legal argument to present to the SC on this matter, that's one thing. Attempting to pressure the courts through the media and berating the SC justices to their faces at State of the Union addresses (as Obama successfully did) are unethical practices which show either an ignorance of the separation of powers or a complete disregard for it.
45 posted on 01/03/2014 10:25:21 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1
Pressuring a Judge? Isn't that, like, you know ... illegal?

The Judicial Branch has become Legislative and totally ignore the Constitution in their rulings. The Executive Branch has become Legislative. The Legislative Branch only seem to care about status quo and their "phony baloney jobs". The States and the People try rein in the madness only to get overturned by Federal Courts. The endgame is here. What will it be?

46 posted on 01/03/2014 10:26:39 AM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz

And Amish I believe are exempt.


47 posted on 01/03/2014 10:32:10 AM PST by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

If they are really pressuring her it would not turn up in this article.

She’d be getting dead fish in the mail, or a menacing visit from a man in a trenchcoat in the parking lot, or whatever they did to John Roberts.


48 posted on 01/03/2014 10:33:06 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Government lawyers say the nuns’ insurance is a “church plan” that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.

Then why did the nuns waste their time and effort to sue if they were told they didn't have to provide the coverage? Can all church organizations go to a "church plan" and forgo the contraceptive coverage?

49 posted on 01/03/2014 10:45:05 AM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

The Obama administration is not set up for compromise. In light of the Catholic church’s focus on “social justice” and it’s support of Obamacare until their own oxen were gored, one would expect the Catholic hierarchy to resume full-throated endorsement of Obamacare if only they could exempt themselves from providing abortions.

And yet the Obama administration treats the Catholixs as it does all other non-Islamic religions.


50 posted on 01/03/2014 11:15:16 AM PST by Piranha (Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have - Saul Alinsky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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