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

Skip to comments.

Pin drop! Obama lawyer stuns Supreme justice
WND ^ | 3/25/2014 | GREG COROMBOS

Posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:08 PM PDT by Beave Meister

In a dramatic moment at the Supreme Court Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices that U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.

Justices and lawyers also sparred over whether businesses actually have religious freedom and whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens.

The notable abortion exchange between Verrilli and Justice Anthony Kennedy came during oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases linked by the companies’ owners objecting to the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that businesses fully cover the contraception costs for their employees. That mandate includes coverage of abortafacient drugs, also known as the “morning-after pill.”

Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Legal Studies Cathy Ruse was in the gallery during oral arguments and said that was the most remarkable moment in the court session Tuesday.

“This was actually the most exciting part of the oral argument this morning, when Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes,” Ruse said.

“You could hear a pin drop, and I think that stunned Justice Kennedy. Since he’s always the swing vote, you want to stun him in a way that pushes him over to your side of the column,” she said.

(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; aca; conestogawood; hobbylobby; justicekennedy; justiceroberts; obama; obamacare; prolife; scotus; sebelius
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
To Be Continued......
1 posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:08 PM PDT by Beave Meister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

Kennedy is irrelevant...all they need is Roberts, and he’s already in the bag.


2 posted on 03/25/2014 9:06:25 PM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister
pResident (Zipper) 0'Muslim's lawyers' are masters of cr@p.

3 posted on 03/25/2014 9:07:33 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

I think I’ll change my vacation plans to the last week of the court calendar. I’m tired of this crap.


4 posted on 03/25/2014 9:10:40 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

Roberts should resign for reasons of “health.” It’s profoundly dishonorable for him to allow himself to be blackmailed on every issue this way.


5 posted on 03/25/2014 9:10:47 PM PDT by ottbmare (the OTTB mare, now a proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Chief Justice John Roberts, should have been impeached..
for failing to follow the US Constitution..same w/Blackmon in '74.

6 posted on 03/25/2014 9:11:33 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

“Kennedy is irrelevant...all they need is Roberts, and he’s already in the bag.”

I know why you say that, but why do you think he’s turned out so different than anticipated?


7 posted on 03/25/2014 9:11:51 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011

Why are Muslims EXEMPTED? Isn’t it because of their religion? Can’t Hobby Lobby et al claim they should be exempt for the same reason?


8 posted on 03/25/2014 9:15:39 PM PDT by Beave Meister (Die Hard Cubs Fan.....if it takes forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

The government lawyer is correct. Corporations have no religious freedom, because they are creations of the government - not God.

Human beings have religious freedom. Human beings working together in a business have religious freedom.

But a corporation? That’s a paper person - and that’s what all these laws address.

Watching the entire population of the country refuse to grapple with this difference and constantly get smacked by the very thing they refuse to acknowledge is depressing as hell.


9 posted on 03/25/2014 9:17:24 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

Blackmail, or he was a Trojan Horse....

Either way, there is NO logic to his ruling upholding Obamacare...NONE.


10 posted on 03/25/2014 9:18:01 PM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I get what your saying but can you explains Citizens United then in this context where freedom of speech is accorded to corporate personhood?


11 posted on 03/25/2014 9:20:31 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

Citizens United Sept 2009:

“Chief Justice Roberts disagreed: “A large corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests.” Justice Antonin Scalia said most corporations are “indistinguishable from the individual who owns them.”


12 posted on 03/25/2014 9:21:27 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

Yes they sure can. I dont’ know if they’re going to get a favorable ruling though. I have no faith in the SCOTUS. We’re beyond politics now I think.


13 posted on 03/25/2014 9:21:56 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

That was in 2009, before he turned.


14 posted on 03/25/2014 9:22:40 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
The government lawyer is correct. Corporations have no religious freedom, because they are creations of the government - not God.

Yet in the same breath, the same sleazebag hired-gun lawyer will argue the right of corporations to give millions to democratic candidates because their recognition as corpus (of the body, and equivalent to a living being), they have freedom of speech. Can't have it both ways.
15 posted on 03/25/2014 9:24:48 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

These are the guys who’ve been complaining that “wingnuts” were misinterpreting Obie’s “you didn’t make that” speech, right.


16 posted on 03/25/2014 9:26:29 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (Hoaxey Dopey Changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21
before he turned

before he was turned

17 posted on 03/25/2014 9:27:05 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister
whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens...when Obamacare buys my condoms for me, then striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens.....
18 posted on 03/25/2014 9:27:15 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister
For forty years, the Left has been working to undermine the Constitution. This effort has been pursued on many fronts, but some of the most subtle attacks have been against the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

One of the most successful lines of attack against these Constitutionally enumerated rights has been to restrict their coverage in various incremental ways. Examples of this are rife... when head-on attempts to eliminate the right to bear arms came to grief, the incrementalists went after particular catagories of firearms, particular types of gun accessories, particular types of ammunition, etc.

Another attack of this type has been to restrict the venues in which the First Amendment could operate. This started (it can be argued) with the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" formulation of Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States.

In the last few decades, the left has succeeded in setting up precedents for the idea that the Freedom of Speech -- arguably the most revered of all the rights we are guaranteed by the Constitution -- ceases to operate the moment a person passes through the doors of a business. A group of businessmen gives up their right to speak freely in the public square, apparently because of the possibility that their financial means might make it possible for them to purchase a particularly powerful megaphone.

The restriction of this freedom does not apply to the management of labor unions, or of large philanthropies, or (it goes without saying) to members of the various media organizations and members of the government.

In its decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to this back-door movement to restrict our freedoms, but the Left is not giving up. They feel an instinctive drive to control speech in the public square, at least when that speech comes from directions that they think will inconvenience them.

19 posted on 03/25/2014 9:27:24 PM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Blackmail, or he was a Trojan Horse.... Either way, there is NO logic to his ruling upholding Obamacare...NONE.

There was nothing BUT logic. Cold, hard, rigid, legal logic. Which the ENTIRE country has refused to study.

Because hey, slander is so much easier than actually learning something.

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

20 posted on 03/25/2014 9:27:25 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

all business exists for the benefit of the state, then.

time to start the revolt if they win. can’t live free under such a wicked, twisted government.

we’ll make some extra needed changes to the constitution to prevent such tyranny from occurring again. no justices for life. term limits on all fed offices. no alphabet agencies with any power to create regs with the power of law. no hundreds of thousands of armed federal agents. back to dc limits for them.


21 posted on 03/25/2014 9:27:37 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Can't have it both ways.

Can indeed have it both ways - because corporations are given privileges that are based SOLELY on the needs of the State. If those privileges imitate rights, fine. If they don't - fine too. But the consistancy of corporate rulings has nothing to do with their comparison to rights - only to State needs. So you're making a false comparison.

22 posted on 03/25/2014 9:30:20 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Kennedy is irrelevant...all they need is Roberts, and he’s already in the bag.

The admin has some heavy stuff on Roberts thanks to their friends in the DOJ, DBI, CIA and NSA.
23 posted on 03/25/2014 9:31:51 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

corporations are not inanimate objects, they are owned and run by people. And those people have opinions and beliefs that should be safe from government coercion


24 posted on 03/25/2014 9:32:42 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
But a corporation? That’s a paper person - and that’s what all these laws address.

And the Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have free speech rights vis-a-vis campaign contributions.

Is it a stretch that the Court might also rule that corpoations have freedom of religion? I think not ...

25 posted on 03/25/2014 9:33:08 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
all business exists for the benefit of the state, then.

All corporations exist for the needs of the State, because legally they are extensions of the State and find their creation in the State - that's why they can be taxed and regulated BY the State.

But corporations are not businesses. Corporations can DO business, but they ARE created by the State for the purposes of the State. As such, they offer a certain level of indemnification that many people find appealing - and so, in incorporating, they make their deal with the devil.

I'm not denying that evil people use this construction for evil ends. I'm just saying that their is, indeed, a structure to it, and strict rules it follows. And it is voluntary, and it is NOT the same as human beings working together in an UNincorporated business.

26 posted on 03/25/2014 9:33:49 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
corporations are given privileges that are based SOLELY on the needs of the State.

No, the concept of encorporation was designed to protect investors, pooled business interests, and property rights both physical and intellectual of said group. What you have described is fascism.
27 posted on 03/25/2014 9:35:01 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
corporations are not inanimate objects, they are owned and run by people. And those people have opinions and beliefs that should be safe from government coercion

Look at your own words - "owned and run by." But WHAT is "owned and run by?" What is that THING that is owned and run? Is it a business?

NO.

It is a corporation, a LEGAL ENTITY, that is created to DO business by having human beings own and run it. A corporation is a thing in it's own right, under the law. And it is that thing - and that thing ONLY - that is subject to the laws.

And that means that if people work in order to own and run that thing, and do business THROUGH that thing, then they can be treated as "corporate individuals" and LOSE THEIR RIGHTS - and accept the limitations of corporate privilege and corporate law.

In return, they get a certain level of indimnification from the corporation. That's the deal they VOLUNTEER to accept.

28 posted on 03/25/2014 9:38:19 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
The government lawyer is correct. Corporations have no religious freedom, because they are creations of the government - not God.

“Chief Justice Roberts raised the point that corporations can actually file racial discrimination claims. So he said if a corporation can have a race, why can’t it have a religious claim? The government’s attorney didn’t really have an answer for that,” Ruse said."

29 posted on 03/25/2014 9:39:37 PM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beave Meister

Here you go:
“U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.”

viz- “Bank of Whittier, a tiny community bank in Los Angeles that specializes in financing for Muslims who want to comply with Islamic anti-usury laws that prohibit the paying or charging of interest.

The bank, whose staffers speak more than a dozen languages, markets itself to observant Muslim entrepreneurs trying to stay within the boundaries of Shariah, or Islamic law. Its clients include owners of gas stations, supermarkets, and restaurants.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-06/halal-financing-for-muslim-entrepreneurs-gains-currency

one law for us, one law for moslems -

This is gonna stop soon like an ice cream truck on an icy road.


30 posted on 03/25/2014 9:40:54 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
I see no difference between the different types of business models a person might employ to run their business.

sole proprietor
partnership
llc
corporation
ect...

all they are are ways of structuring ones business. In many cases for the sole reason of limiting liability.

I see no compelling reason that someone who owns a widget factory who incorporates it has any fewer rights than he would if he ran it has a sole proprietorship.

31 posted on 03/25/2014 9:42:35 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

Thank you...


32 posted on 03/25/2014 9:44:08 PM PDT by Beave Meister (Die Hard Cubs Fan.....if it takes forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
No, the concept of encorporation was designed to protect investors, pooled business interests, and property rights both physical and intellectual of said group. What you have described is fascism.

Yes, it's fascism. So what? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Think - exactly how are those interests you listed protected? By indemnification, that's how. But think it through - why shouldn't they be fully responsible, personally, for what they do in business? Why not? In fact, under common law, there is absolutely no reason why not, and such people were sued in their personal capacities for harm they did through their businesses.

So the corporation was created to privide that indemnification - and it's mechanism is to be an extension of the incorporated government, owned and operated by private individuals who agree to run it under corporate operation laws and be TAXED by corporate tax laws.

How is that fascism? How is it not, rather a form of fraud, whereby people get to harm others by their work, but not get sued because they wave an incorporation paper at their victims, while people operating the same type of business which doesn't have that piece of paper get sued in their individual capacities? What legal process makes this transformation possible, and legal?

The ver word incorporation MEANS to "bring into the body." Well, into the body of what? The incorporated State, that's what - which then gets the right to tax the incorporated business in return for limited indemnification.

33 posted on 03/25/2014 9:45:30 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Corporations are collections of individuals uniting to operate a joint business. If individuals do not have the right to act collectively then there are no rights.


34 posted on 03/25/2014 9:48:15 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

But I thought that the court had said corporations are people in the Citizens United case.


35 posted on 03/25/2014 9:48:18 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

By that definition, there isn’t a single marriage in the US that isn’t a corporation. As such, why is there spousal privilege?

I know we filed our license with the secretary of state, which made our property community, and gave each other power of attorney over each of us individually.

That’s a company. A not-for-profit company, but certainly a company.

SCOTUS already ruled corporations are entitled to speech the same as any individual citizen. Are we not splitting 1A in half for companies here? You can speak, but not about God?

So, if I took 10 percent of my profit, and gave it to a church, isn’t that a form of speech, same as if I gave my money to a PAC?

Wouldn’t that be looked at by the church as tithing, and thus, prayer?


36 posted on 03/25/2014 9:51:07 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

A sole proprietorship is a form of informal incorporation. So is a partnership and LLC. Each of those terms is described in detail in the tax code, and have specific individual corporate identities and requirements - and tax rates.

But just human beings making and selling products? You will not find that phrase in the tax code.

These terms are the basis of administrative law. Whether you “drive” or “travel” is two different things. Yes, it’s bullsh!t - but it’s how it works. It’s a word game, and a presumption game, and it’s played deadly serious by the government. It’s why cops and lawyers and judges and bureaucrats talk the way they do - so stilted and weird. Notice in the article - the writer says “business.” But what does the Justice ask about in his question? Corporations. Not businesses - corporations.


37 posted on 03/25/2014 9:51:14 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: funfan
But I thought that the court had said corporations are people in the Citizens United case.

No, it ruled that they can be treated as persons. And everyone thought that that meant what you said. But a "person" is a human being with corporate responsibilities, and so had been given a different set of privileges from the corporation that they worked for. Citizens United ruled that or the purposes of political involvement, the the corporation can be given the same privileges as a person working in a corporate capacity.

Dense? Yep. But not tangled - very specific.

38 posted on 03/25/2014 9:54:20 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JPX2011

Stop quoting the left’s parody version of Citizens United. The majority’s reasoning did not depend on the legal fiction that a corporation is a person — only one of the dissenters mentioned the notion of a corporation as a juridical person in a snarky passage attacking the majority’s holding. The majority held that the right of people to engage in political speech is not somehow attenuated or abolished by virtue of the people organizing into a corporation. The right of a corporation to engage in political speech is the right of its shareholders (or members) to engage in political speech. The same ought to apply here: the right of free exercise of religion is not somehow attenuated or abolished by virtue of the fact the natural persons engage in commerce as a corporation.


39 posted on 03/25/2014 9:54:23 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Thank you for the clarification.


40 posted on 03/25/2014 9:55:50 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Corporations have no religious freedom, because they are creations of the government - not God.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tomorrow, how many ‘governments’ will walk into a secretary of states office and file papers to incorporate?
41 posted on 03/25/2014 9:55:54 PM PDT by bramps (Go West America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: funfan

Wrong. Stop quoting the left’s parody version of Citizens United. (Or did you leave off as \sarcasm tag?)


42 posted on 03/25/2014 9:56:30 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

The first thing I did when I saw your comment was check your sign up date.
(that’s not a compliment)


43 posted on 03/25/2014 9:58:37 PM PDT by bramps (Go West America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

No sarcasm I believed what I wrote. I did have a fellow Freeper explain it to me so I am clear now.


44 posted on 03/25/2014 9:59:07 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

What do you think a corporation is if not human beings working together? My wife and I are a corporation. My brother is one also. I worked for one that consisted of a man and his son. We know lots of corporations like that. Should we be denied the right to practice our religion and follow our conscience because of the legal form we have chosen for our businesses? Even huge corporations are owned by real people. I own shares in Coca Cola, Ford, British Petroleum and others. Are only partnerships, proprietorships and LLCs allowed freedom of religion?


45 posted on 03/25/2014 9:59:36 PM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

That’s right - getting a marriage license is a form of incorporation. And as to why different corporate forms are given different privileges, it’s simple - because that serves the needs of the State.

A marriage license is actually nothing other than a TAX STATUS. You get one because you want to be able to file in a certain way. In return, your marriage gets incorprated, and you both agree to become vulnerable to any number of associated laws.

Marriage used to be the sole venue of the Church. And even though marriage licenses were given by the government long ago, they were solely for the government to acknowlege the marriage for the purposes of government issues - such as when a Revolutionary War vet got a pension, or a deceased government employee’s wife got a pension. These “marriage licenses” by no means CREATED a marriage - they just ACKNOWLEDGED it.

Since the 14th Amendment, however, and the incorporation of Washington DC in 1874, the government has granted itself the power of corporate creation - and the presumption of corporate creation against human beings.

Game changer, to say the least.


46 posted on 03/25/2014 10:00:04 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Appreciate the reply. Will adjust my understanding accordingly. You have my thanks.


47 posted on 03/25/2014 10:02:25 PM PDT by JPX2011
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

Proof?


48 posted on 03/25/2014 10:04:50 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster
<Are only partnerships, proprietorships and LLCs allowed freedom of religion?

According to the DOJ, freedom of religion is enjoyed only individuals...and non-profit corporations.

49 posted on 03/25/2014 10:07:12 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media -- IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

The concept of a corporation existing solely for the benefit of the state was an alien concept to business law prior to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler coming along. The concept was originally conceived so that the business entity could outlive any individual human member, and enter into legally binding contractual agreements just like an individual.


50 posted on 03/25/2014 10:07:12 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 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