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

Skip to comments.

Homofascism Should Be Crushed
Pajamas Media ^ | 06/03/2014 | Andrew Klavan

Posted on 06/03/2014 8:10:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

This blog is — was, shall remain — a friend to gay people. I hope it’s a friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one else.

Many of my fellow Christians tell me that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe so, but it’s not my sin. And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say and I will one day stand before the throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, whether I did what I could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained… well, let’s say I’ve got approximately a lifetime’s worth of other things to think about before I start worrying myself over other people’s sins.

Anyway, though our laws are steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, one of those principles happens to be the divide between Caesar and God. We are not, nor are we meant to be, a theocracy. Gluttony is a sin, one of the seven deadlies, but Mayor Bloomberg was still an overbearing idiot when he tried to tell us what sort of sodas to drink. Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so.

So should gay people be allowed to marry by law? I look at it this way. There are going to be gay people. They are going to have relationships. Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.

Having said all this, I think Homofascism — this current movement to regulate and restrict opinions and outlooks toward homosexuality — indeed, toward anything — should be crushed. Lawsuits against photographers who won’t shoot gay weddings. Television show cancellations because the hosts oppose gay marriage. Attempts to silence anti-gay preaching or force churches to recognize gay marriages. Crushed, all of it. Crushed by the united voice of the people, crushed in courts of law, in legislatures, in businesses and in conversation. When someone is sued, attacked, shamed, boycotted or fired for opposing gay marriage or just opposing gayness in general, straight and gay people alike should protest. No one should lose his television show, no one should be dragged before a judge, no one should have his business threatened. Don’t tell me about a company’s right to fire its employees. It has the right, but it isn’t right. It’s unAmerican and it’s despicable.

Gay rights, like all rights, do not in any way supersede the rights of others. A free person may have any opinion about homosexuality he chooses — or about blackness or about Judaism or any other damned thing — and he should be able to speak that opinion out loud and act on that opinion if he does no immediate harm. Basically, as long as he keeps his hands to himself, he should be able to believe and say whatever he wants without paying any price whatsoever for it other than the disagreement — and possibly dislike and disdain — of his fellow Americans.

Does he believe that homosexuality is a sin that degrades the practitioner? He should be able to say so. Does he feel it would be a sin for him to participate in a gay wedding as a baker or photographer? He should be allowed to follow his lights in peace. Does he feel male-female marriage is a pillar of freedom? Let him fight to preserve it. Does he find gay sex disgusting? Rude to say out loud maybe, but still, within his rights. Maybe he finds it unnatural (whatever that means). Or maybe he’s a leftist and feels that all gender behaviors are pure social constructs… hey, there’s no law against being an idiot. Me, I feel that heterosexuality is the human norm, but there are harmless variants outside the norm and, you know, who cares? I’ll say the same to anyone. We should all be able to say — and vote — what we please. It’s called freedom. It’s a beautiful thing, even when it gets ugly.

The next time a business — a TV network or restaurant or anything — finds itself under attack or boycott because one of its employees disapproves of gays, they should issue the following statement. “Our employees’ opinions do not represent our opinion. Our opinion is this: it’s a free country; to each his own. And in keeping with that philosophy, we are taking no action in this matter. Have a chicken sandwich.”

How hard is this? How did we lose this idea? You can be free, but so is the next guy. America. Simple.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fascism; homofascism; homosexuality

1 posted on 06/03/2014 8:10:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The exceedingly stupid author fails to realize (or mention) that redefining marriage will essentially crush us all.


2 posted on 06/03/2014 8:15:40 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Probably the origins of homosexual fascism have its roots in the disgusting acts they perform. Something the author doesn’t recognize or understand.


3 posted on 06/03/2014 8:16:40 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

It’s not a good article. It’s naïve.


4 posted on 06/03/2014 8:17:17 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Interesting. It’s obvious the author opposes homofascism, but it’s also obvious the author has no clue about the fact that God is not mocked, and our nation’s embrace of homosexuality is mocking Him. His wrath is already falling on us because of our collective depravity. Our formerly rich and prosperous nation is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. How much more wrath do we want poured out on us? So this embrace of homosexuality ain’t a “victimless” crime.


5 posted on 06/03/2014 8:17:47 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I concur. Hypocritical rubbish. He agrees to their demands, then asks that they be crushed.


6 posted on 06/03/2014 8:19:47 AM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
It’s not a good article. It’s naïve.

It's not naïve, but dangerously deceptive. Homos always try to be our "friends" to get within stabbing distance.

I don't buy his filth for a second.

7 posted on 06/03/2014 8:19:56 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All these libertarian types who supported gay marriage must be horrible chess players; they cannot think more than one move ahead. The SSM movement has been very successful in marketing themselves as the successor of the Civil Rights movement; not allowing SSM is the same as not allowing interracial marriage. What happened to the segregationists post-1960s? They were driven out of polite society and such views are not tolerated. With SSM on the verge of the final SCOTUS coup de grace it is entirely expected that those who opposed SSM will also like segregationists be driven out of society. But for some reason people like Klavan did not realize that and are now being thrown under the bus since they served their useful idiot purpose.


8 posted on 06/03/2014 8:20:03 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
I don't get that at all. The naivety of straight people towards gay men is mindblowing to me.
9 posted on 06/03/2014 8:22:02 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“Homos always try to be our “friends” to get within stabbing distance.”

Money quote. Most faggies hate “breeders”, something else this author cannot fathom.


10 posted on 06/03/2014 8:23:38 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting? You figure it out.”

This line betrays the authors naivety. The state has no business encouraging either. Surely if the state really looked out for its interest, it would favor having these people just enter heterosexual relationships.

Besides, even with homo marriage, the relationships STILL end up being vast majority brief, brutish and meaningless. All you’ve done is given it a government seal of approval


11 posted on 06/03/2014 8:24:26 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Nice article, but Mr. Klavan is not understanding the realities of the homosexual agenda.

The satanic left, led by the homosexuals and feminazi’s, are not interested in ‘live and let live’. They will howl and squeal like a pig any time they don't get their way - and their way is literally ‘my way or the highway’.

The homosexual agenda must either be eradicated, contained, or like a cancer will spread until the host is no more.

12 posted on 06/03/2014 8:26:38 AM PDT by Paulie (Buy local, bank local, exert your influence locally; the left will fold like a cheap suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

AK gets a lot right but not this.

One cannot serve two masters, have ones cake and eat it too...which he tries to do here. I think in a vacuum, he would be right...but we are not in one. Homosexuality comes with strings attached. Death, mental illness exasperated by the act itself, disease, corruption of our foundational principles...it’s a long list.

Homosexuals do not simply do their thing. There are far reacing and very negative consequences to ‘their thing’. Their thing involves AIDS, chickenhawkery, political facism, anti religious sentiment forced on the religious and dozens of others.


13 posted on 06/03/2014 8:27:15 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In realistic terms, this situation is all but settled...the courts have allowed ‘anything goes’ regardless of what individual states and their citizens want. That said, the ‘state’ redefining marriage is not to be excused. The author’s argument has some merit (about gay relationships). The legal and economic argument of giving two gay men or women the same rights as a married couple is a reasonable argument. Whether it is tax benefit, legal rights in court and in hospitals. A stable relationship is a far better thing than perpetual singlehood. Personally, I know many gay partners who have 15+ years together.

That said, redefining marriage is just plain wrong. The government should never have had a role in defining marriage so it could be redefined by government fiat. The government now supersedes individual religion, which is a horrible development. Unfortunately this happened swiftly and with little discussion or debate...it was done with a hammer by the left and no counter-argument was made....those against have stated a belief in traditional marriage, but that is not sufficient nor has it moved the ball back in the right direction. It is likely too late policy wise, but I would love to see at least one state move to establish a domestic partnership law in lieu of ‘marriage’ and take it through the court system.


14 posted on 06/03/2014 8:27:21 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I agree with this guy in concept. There are always going to be gay people. As long as they stay on their side of the room and don’t intrude into my side I can live with that. I’m not going to condemn them. That’s God’s job. But I’m not going to let them force me to accept their lifestyle as normal or provide services for them against my will nor am I going to allow them to escort a young male cub scout troop with my grandson into the woods alone against my better judgment either. There are reasons for socital limitations on what is considered normal or deviant behavior and it comes from judgment based on prior experiences. No amount of PC will make me give in and go against my better judgment. Stop the Homo Nazification of our children and stop trying to breed a new generation of perverts and we can get along.


15 posted on 06/03/2014 8:27:55 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

it will never be settled

first off, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows courts to impose laws on the states.


16 posted on 06/03/2014 8:28:02 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I think homosexual practice --- in particular, expressing one's deep meaningful relationship via anal penetration/trauma --- is objectively abusive even with consent. Unfortunately, most people in this country apparently believe that "abuse with consent" is an oxymoron, since they think "consent" is all there is. The triumph of the will. The almighty will.

However, as a Catholic I am convinced that the entire Moral Law can be reached via reason drawing reasonable conclusions from evidence, which is to say, the entire Divine Moral Law can be learned from, Natural Law, since they both have the same Author.

And what that means is that active homosexuality will work the destruction of individuals, families, cultures and civilizations. It has as much disruptive power, cumulatively, as a nuclear war.

So it looks like we're going to have to actually experience increasing inundations of suffering, all of us (not just the perps) because people will not heed a warning.

17 posted on 06/03/2014 8:32:01 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (“Catholics don’t scream about Jesus, they scream about the bishop.” - Lucas Davenport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

With or without regard to religion, homosexuality is a perversion. Period.


18 posted on 06/03/2014 8:32:40 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

“There are always going to be gay people. As long as they stay on their side of the room and don’t intrude into my side I can live with that. “

and that is why, eventually, America will balkanize. They refuse to stay on their side of any room they enter. As with other liberals, they demand your/my side adopt the norms of their side and ‘become’ their side in all ways.

That was tried in 1776. England learned the hard way too.


19 posted on 06/03/2014 8:34:17 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Just one of what could be many illustrations.

I remember the incident in “One Million Dead,” (by Jose Maria Gironella, on the Spanish Civil War) where the far-Left commander Buenaventura Durruti is leading a column of Anarchist troops to try to take the city of Zaragoza. The effort fails, partly just from anarchists-being-anarchists, and partly from the sexual disorder sweeping the ranks, with venereal diseases having a greater impact on the troops than even mortar injuries.

At one point Durruti separates out all the homosexuals and gonorrhea-infected militiawomen from his forces, puts them in boxcars, takes them off on a railway siding, and mows them down with a machinegun.

Not my recommendation, by the way.

But it does show that the Spanish Left was even in the 1930’s a haven for disordered, promiscuous people (both hetero and homo) and even the Left found that sexual disorder (in any kind of “sexual”) is incompatible with combat-readiness.

Note to the DoD.

20 posted on 06/03/2014 8:34:27 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Catholics don't scream about Jesus, they scream about the bishop..." - Lucas Davenport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever rationales you come up with to make it so.

Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. (...)

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. (...)

“The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”

~ Justice Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas dissent


21 posted on 06/03/2014 8:36:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From the article ...
> Sin is not the government’s business, no matter what clever
> rationales you come up with to make it so.

Really? Murder, stealiing, and false witness are sins, too. You mean the government should butt out of those, too?


22 posted on 06/03/2014 8:38:12 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulie
Nice article, but Mr. Klavan is not understanding the realities of the homosexual agenda.

He fails to mention - I believe intentionally - that redefining marriage to include same-sex couplings is not the end of it at all. In fact, it will just be a staging area for the real attacks against any vestige of a Christian society.

23 posted on 06/03/2014 8:40:16 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"And on the off-chance the Gospels mean what they say and I will one day stand before the throne of God and be judged on whether I loved Him and my neighbor, whether I did what I could for the hungry, thirsty, sick, weak, enchained"

Right out of the chute, the author has the Gospel wrong. His info may be from the "Gospels", but this is not the "Gospel". Go read Paul's letter to the Romans. In the Gospels, Jesus was teaching the Jews that if they want Law to be their salvation, here is what is involved...perfection. Otherwise, God will grant faith to those whom He has chosen (by grace, alone) and rescue them because He has decided. No wonder the author cannot see the picture...he has been blinded by "religion".

24 posted on 06/03/2014 8:40:39 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King write this article?


25 posted on 06/03/2014 8:43:00 AM PDT by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Why can’t we all get along”? Did Rodney King’s ghost write this article?


26 posted on 06/03/2014 8:43:15 AM PDT by miele man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I hope it’s a friend to any person who wants to do whatever gives him joy and hurts no one else.

Here the author reveals his simple-minded naivety. Before us we see the growing destruction resulting from everyone doing whatever is right int heir own eyes. Before us we see the devolution of the moral safe guards that have kept a free people from becoming debased by their appetites and own carnality. From this, no good will come. Be assured, only pain, misery, and brokenness will be the result of the attitude of the author.

How much human misery will we allow by having the author's misplaced high-minded attitude of tolerance? The problem is that this tolerance will most certainly exact an unmistakably harsh penalty on society and upon individuals. The decent into craven lust will certainly not end with homosexuality. There will be new demands for acceptance of increasingly vulgar and debased behavior. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and the sort will soon be up for negotiation by those who tell us that there is no collateral damage or appropriate offense to be taken. The author is woefully misguided by suggesting that those who object to homosexuality do so only out of venial concern or out of an outdated moral code.

Like many others, the author disingenuously equates those who oppose the practice of homosexuality as those who also hate the individuals who have surrendered themselves to such a practice. This is a false narrative that has been cleverly leveraged by those seeking to advance the practice of homosexuality.

No, the author is wrong.

27 posted on 06/03/2014 8:43:43 AM PDT by Obadiah (Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

The problem is with homosexual acts. Because they are innately gross, the men who perform them turn to drugs and alcohol to wash the memories away. That was the way it’s been in society for a thousand years. Then gays decided that the best way to wash away the guilt was to get straight people to accept their acts. They were so successful that they grew into fascists - probably in the same way that the SA in Hitler’s regime grew to power, although I’m certainly no expert.


28 posted on 06/03/2014 8:46:54 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah
Yup. We will sink under the naivety of writers like this.
29 posted on 06/03/2014 8:47:56 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The devil sure does seem to always be in the details. Christ said ‘Remember Lot's wife’. Now Lot's wife apparently was not a pervert practitioner but she sure did not want to leave the environment. Why it must have been ‘happy, happy, happy’, there in the bowels of Sodom. So this tripe of live and let live has no home. The devil I mean the gods of the state, have proclaimed ‘who am I to judge’!
30 posted on 06/03/2014 8:49:43 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

I love my neighbor enough to try to save him from his sin. Just sayin’.


31 posted on 06/03/2014 8:55:08 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

It is “naïve” because it allows him to avoid the wrath of liberals and sodomites on this issue. He’s a coward.


32 posted on 06/03/2014 9:06:08 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

I read it as naivete. Do you think naivete can’t be dangerous?


33 posted on 06/03/2014 9:09:43 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The author does not understand that the victory of ‘Gay Marriage’ = the victory of homofascism; the two are inseparable.


34 posted on 06/03/2014 9:10:04 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"I love my neighbor enough to try to save him from his sin. Just sayin’."

?

35 posted on 06/03/2014 9:45:04 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Meaning tell them that homosexuality is wrong.


36 posted on 06/03/2014 9:53:19 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Excellent comments Mrs. Don-o, especially about it being an abuse of the other party—regardless of consent.

I cannot believe that fallen humanity would be THAT good at keeping a vice in the closet unless said vice had some really obviously nasty social side-effects that called for swift and severe reaction.

“Sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” indeed.


37 posted on 06/03/2014 10:01:58 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So people don’t have a right to make purchasing decisions if they think the merchant is an asshole? If I found out the guy that runs the McDonald’s near me was anti-whatever in a way that pissed me off, I’d probably find somewhere else to get chicken nuggets at midnight.


38 posted on 06/03/2014 10:32:57 AM PDT by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

> I would imagine that if there were an undercover exposé on their true lifestyles many of the straight supporter’s mouths would drop. I don’ think they have an idea about how promiscuous and deviant they really are.


39 posted on 06/03/2014 11:24:09 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

All one naïve straight needs to do is find a gay male website. His eyebrows would fly off his face. The language alone (one of my pet peeves with gay men) would send them to the Pepto Bismal.


40 posted on 06/03/2014 11:28:37 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
is it better for the state that those relationships be brief, brutish and meaningless or committed, affectionate and long-lasting?

The problem is that changing the meaning of words will not make the homosexual encounters anything BUT brief, brutish and meaningless.

Their encounters are based in the desire to stick their peepee into another guys butt. That is it. That is all there is to that "relationship". It is like asking if it is best for the state that the relationship between a person and their blowup doll be "committed, affectionate and long-lasting".

When everything is based on sex there is nothing there to build on.

There is no desire to have children together because they can't.

There is no desire to build a family together because they can not.

If you don't believe me just look at how many of those "committed, affectionate and long-lasting" relationships survived their make-believe "marriage".

41 posted on 06/03/2014 11:46:04 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

Well said!


42 posted on 06/03/2014 2:32:44 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

It is all too often very dangerous.


43 posted on 06/03/2014 2:33:06 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bump


44 posted on 06/03/2014 2:37:32 PM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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