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

Skip to comments.

Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship
Yahoo/AP ^ | June 10, 2014 | WILL WEISSERT

Posted on 06/11/2014 6:13:39 PM PDT by kingattax

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made good on a promise to renounce his birth country's citizenship — doing so amid speculation he could make a run at the White House in 2016.

Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Cruz's action became official May 14 and that Texas' junior senator received written confirmation at his home in Houston on Tuesday. She said the tea-party-backed Republican "is pleased to have the process finalized."

"Being a U.S. Senator representing Texas, it makes sense he should be only an American citizen," Frazier said in an email.

Cruz, 43, was born in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970, while his parents were working in the oil business there. His mother, Eleanor, is from Delaware, while his father, Rafael, is a Cuban became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: canada; cruzcanada
www.runtedrun.com
1 posted on 06/11/2014 6:13:39 PM PDT by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kingattax

We already knew this, it is old information.


2 posted on 06/11/2014 6:15:22 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

If he runs for President, man they’ll scream he isn’t a citizen.


3 posted on 06/11/2014 6:18:17 PM PDT by Mmogamer (I refudiate the lamestream media, leftists and their prevaricutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer
man they’ll scream he isn’t a citizen

After Obama?
Let'em scream.

4 posted on 06/11/2014 6:19:41 PM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

then you need to be real helpful and inform AP and Yahoo News. they just published the story.


5 posted on 06/11/2014 6:19:44 PM PDT by kingattax (a real American would rather die on his feet than live on his knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Should not be a problem if he runs, I’m sure with some $$$ he can get a certified Hawaiian birth certificate.


6 posted on 06/11/2014 6:20:29 PM PDT by Bringbackthedraft (2016 an election or a coronation of a Queen? I'm sure we'll be told to eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

I wouldn’t consider him a Natural Born Citizen, as originally intended.


7 posted on 06/11/2014 6:20:46 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

“If he runs for President, man they’ll scream he isn’t a citizen.”

Scream back that an immigrant running for president is an act of love. Then call them racists.


8 posted on 06/11/2014 6:20:48 PM PDT by Antihero101607
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Why?

I posted to you that it is old information, if they interest you, then you contact them, I’m posting here.


9 posted on 06/11/2014 6:22:01 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
Already done to death here.
10 posted on 06/11/2014 6:23:26 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Giving up a foreign citizenship doesn’t miraculously turn him into a NBC. While he’s the best out there, chipping away at the Constitution isn’t going to bring back America.


11 posted on 06/11/2014 6:27:38 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
I wouldn’t consider him a Natural Born Citizen, as originally intended.

Your problem is that even the Founders disagreed about the exact meaning, so much, that they never bothered to codify the meaning either in the US Constitution or US Law.
12 posted on 06/11/2014 6:30:21 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bgill; kingattax
Giving up a foreign citizenship doesn’t miraculously turn him into a NBC. While he’s the best out there, chipping away at the Constitution isn’t going to bring back America.

There is no constitutional requirement for a US Citizen to have 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a 'Natural Born Citizen'

If you would like to argue your position, please provide the relevant part of the US Constitution that defines 'Natural Born' as requiring 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a 'Natural Born Citizen'.

Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s) that defines 'Natural Born' citizenship as requiring 2 US Citizen parents at birth.

Lacking that, please provide the relevant SCOTUS rulings that defines 'Natural Born' citizenship as requiring 2 US Citizen parents at birth.

You won't because you can't because they don't exist, thereby making your opinion about the "chipping away at the Constitution" both incorrect and immaterial to this conversation.
13 posted on 06/11/2014 6:34:11 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

This could start a trend.
B0 DunhamSoetoroSoebarkah could give up his Indonesian citizenship.

Maybe not. Multiple citizenships would be an asset in being selected as United Nations Secretary General.


14 posted on 06/11/2014 6:36:12 PM PDT by Zuse (I am disrupted! I am offended! I am insulted! I am outraged!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I wish. I have many problems. But enough about me ;) I guess I would support him, assuming he doesn’t go native which most people in DC tend to do.


15 posted on 06/11/2014 6:37:14 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I guess one was out of luck for president if your dad died before you were born, or if your mom was raped by an unknown assailant, or lied about your mysterious, and long gone father.


16 posted on 06/11/2014 6:43:26 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bgill
Giving up a foreign citizenship doesn’t miraculously turn him into a NBC.

You're right. It doesn't.

Even if Cruz had left things as they were, he'd still be an NBC.

17 posted on 06/11/2014 6:44:38 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Actually this subject has been discussed thoroughly on Obama threads. Obama didn’t qualify. His father was not and never wanted to be a citizen. Cruz’ father became a citizen.


18 posted on 06/11/2014 7:07:40 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bgill

I hope he doesn’t get turned into a CBS or ABC either.


19 posted on 06/11/2014 7:15:23 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

Of course he’s a citizen, just not natural born.


20 posted on 06/11/2014 7:15:28 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

So you admit it’s a question... Now what?


21 posted on 06/11/2014 7:16:48 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Not only is Ted Cruz 100% American and qualified to become President of these United States, he's more thoroughly Texan than any number of those fortunate to have been born here such as Willie Nelson, Matthew McConaughey, Wendy Davis, Bob Schieffer, Tommy Lee Jones and other despicable leftists who have repudiated Texas values. Likewise, the great Patriot Ted Nugent, though born a Yankee, has fully embraced the Conservatism that defines Texas!

Go Ted go! Both of 'em! Woo hoo! Take America back! God Bless Texas!

22 posted on 06/11/2014 7:17:55 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

Ditto what you said.


23 posted on 06/11/2014 7:19:52 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

At least Ted’s father wasn’t an America-hating, Kenyan communist.


24 posted on 06/11/2014 7:20:45 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Done to death indeed.

It ended in a zot for one of the 'Cruz is ineligible' trolls.

I'm ok with that.

/johnny

25 posted on 06/11/2014 8:11:09 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. Those born to an eligible US citizen outside of the US are citizens at birth. Go, Ted!


26 posted on 06/11/2014 8:24:18 PM PDT by Christie at the beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

I stand with Ted


27 posted on 06/11/2014 8:28:29 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"Giving up a foreign citizenship doesn’t miraculously turn him into a NBC. You're right. It doesn't. Even if Cruz had left things as they were, he'd still be an NBC. "

We can argue about the definition of NBC all day but what is certain is the founders wrote the qualification to ensure 100% allegiance to the United States. That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.

Even without a definition in the Constitution, logic and common sense tells us Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen.

28 posted on 06/11/2014 8:40:42 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist
That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.

Sure. We could conclude that.

But we would be wrong.

Under American citizenship law, Cruz was a citizen-at-birth. That Canada considered him a Canadian citizen is of no moment.

The citizenship laws of other nations have no relevance to America's citizenship laws. Nor should they. Cruz never had to "renounce" his Canadian citizenship because he has always been an American citizen. On the other hand, he could've formally accepted his Canadian citizenship, thereby renouncing his American citizenship.

But he didn't take that step.

Cruz was never "naturalized", therefore he is a citizen-at-birth; a natural-born citizen, if you wish, as American citizenship law recognizes only the two forms.

29 posted on 06/11/2014 8:57:13 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist
That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.

Sure. We could conclude that.

But we would be wrong.

Under American citizenship law, Cruz was a citizen-at-birth. That Canada considered him a Canadian citizen is of no consequence.

The citizenship laws of other nations have no relevance to America's citizenship laws. Nor should they. Cruz never had to "renounce" his Canadian citizenship because he has always been an American citizen. On the other hand, he could've formally accepted his Canadian citizenship, thereby renouncing his American citizenship.

But he didn't do that.

Cruz was never "naturalized", therefore he is a citizen-at-birth; a natural-born citizen, if you wish, as American citizenship law recognizes only the two forms.

30 posted on 06/11/2014 8:59:01 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You said:”There is no constitutional requirement for a US Citizen to have 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’”

Your sentence makes no sense. The Constitutional requirement is that you have to BE a Natural Born Citizen. The framers all knew exactly what it meant, that’s why they used the term.

Just because people today ascribe their own meanings doesn’t change the fact that the framers knew exactly what they were doing.

We all used to know what “alone” and “is” meant until Bill Clinton came along. Now there is doubt, but the real meaning of the words hasn’t changed.

If you really want to know the truth about NBC read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2840767/posts


31 posted on 06/11/2014 9:19:37 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Your sentence makes no sense. The Constitutional requirement is that you have to BE a Natural Born Citizen. The framers all knew exactly what it meant, that’s why they used the term.

No they did not.

They did not all agree on what it meant.
32 posted on 06/11/2014 9:59:03 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
You said:”There is no constitutional requirement for a US Citizen to have 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’”

Your sentence makes no sense.


Only if you are being purposefully obtuse.
33 posted on 06/11/2014 10:01:29 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
If you really want to know the truth about NBC read this:

I've read through the arguments the contend that it "Natural Born Citizen" requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth.

Why would I want to read through this again. Your "proof" always leads back to books/meanings outside of the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS Rulings.

There is no legal definition provided by any of US Jurisprudence, only the hazy, murky proof of documents that have no legal jurisdiction in the United States today.

Constitutionally AND legally, you don't have a leg to stand on.
34 posted on 06/11/2014 10:04:47 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist; okie01
We can argue about the definition of NBC all day but what is certain is the founders wrote the qualification to ensure 100% allegiance to the United States. That being agreed upon I think we can conclude that a person born on foreign soil to only one US citizen parent who later has to renounce his citizenship to that foreign country would in no way qualify as a person who is certain to have soul allegiance to the United States.

Sorry, but your opinion does not trump the US Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings and none of those have any such definition. Not even close.
35 posted on 06/11/2014 10:06:06 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
So you admit it’s a question... Now what?

No, I do not.

Until either the US Constitution is amended, a new US Law is passed, or a new SCOTUS ruling is completed defining it in the fashion/meaning that you think it should be, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS as he is a "Natural Born Citizen".


36 posted on 06/11/2014 10:08:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I guess one was out of luck for president if your dad died before you were born, or if your mom was raped by an unknown assailant, or lied about your mysterious, and long gone father.

Yes, but that makes too much sense for those invested in this idea since they are trying to get Obama with this silly approach and those supporting Rand Paul and looking for anything to hit Ted Cruz with.
37 posted on 06/11/2014 10:10:09 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
For what is clearly a constitutionalist website, there are certainly a lot of folks around here who could stand a refresher course on the document.

Especially when it comes to presidential eligibility and citizenship law.

38 posted on 06/11/2014 10:10:57 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Actually this subject has been discussed thoroughly on Obama threads. Obama didn’t qualify. His father was not and never wanted to be a citizen. Cruz’ father became a citizen.

Actually, some of the "proof" these losers keep posting to support their position actually states that only the Father had to be a citizen.
39 posted on 06/11/2014 10:11:56 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: okie01

So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. That’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. As Tribe and Olson said about McCain — and could’ve said about Obama, or the Mexico-born George Romney, or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater — Cruz “is certainly not the hypothetical ‘foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”


40 posted on 06/11/2014 10:12:41 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

That is an excerpt from CATO.


41 posted on 06/11/2014 10:13:14 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
" Sorry, but your opinion does not trump the US Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings and none of those have any such definition. Not even close. "

I did not give any definition of NBC. The Constitution does not define NBC so that could be argued indefinitely. I'm using logic.

The framers added the NBC requirement to ensure loyalty to the US. Simply having one citizen as a parent and being born on foreign soil does not logically fit the obvious intention of the framers.

Using your line of thinking a US citizen man could travel to communist china, have sex with a communist Chinese citizen and the child would still be a natural born US citizen qualified for the presidency. There is no difference in this scenario and that of Ted Cruz.

42 posted on 06/11/2014 11:19:34 PM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

So there is no historical data that argues otherwise? Zero? Right? Wrong. It is a question, and you know it.


43 posted on 06/12/2014 4:07:51 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Anyone who ignores the information they’ve dug up is the real loser. Knowledge is a powerful weapon.


44 posted on 06/12/2014 6:29:39 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
So there is no historical data that argues otherwise? Zero? Right? Wrong. It is a question, and you know it.

As of right now, it is not a Legal question, and therefore, of no importance in determining whether or not Ted Cruz is NBC.

By Law, by the Constitution, TODAY, he is NBC.

The only thing that will change that is an Amendment to the US Constitution, a new US Law, or a new SCOTUS ruling.
45 posted on 06/12/2014 6:35:37 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Anyone who ignores the information they’ve dug up is the real loser. Knowledge is a powerful weapon.

Once again, dig up all of the background information you like, as of TODAY, Ted Cruz is legally and constitutionally NBC.

The only way to change that and have the LAW agree with your OPINION is to Amend the Constitution, pass a new US Law, or have a new SCOTUS opinion.
46 posted on 06/12/2014 6:37:18 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
I guess that you didn't really read my first post: Actually this subject has been discussed thoroughly on Obama threads. Obama didn’t qualify. His father was not and never wanted to be a citizen. Cruz’ father became a citizen.

Post 18

47 posted on 06/12/2014 7:21:49 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Then once again we've redefined the meaning of the Constitution in direct opposition to the intent of the framers.

The laws and SCOTUS decisions being quoted didn't exist when the framers added the NBC requirement. Yet the intent of the framers was clearly to protect the United States by limiting the presidency to loyal Americans. Simply having one citizen parent does absolutely nothing to protect the United States from the rule of a foreign born president who could be surreptitiously loyal to another country and form of government.

I have serious doubts the framers would be ok with a person born and raised in the middle east as a Muslim under Sharia Law being qualified to be president simply because the father was a US citizen.

FYI, I'm not worried about Ted Cruz, I live in Texas and did my part in getting him elected. I'm worried about the above scenario which will happen and with grave consequences. Take our current situation as a case in point.

48 posted on 06/12/2014 8:59:42 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.


49 posted on 06/12/2014 6:16:38 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.


50 posted on 06/12/2014 6:16:38 PM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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