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

Skip to comments.

Penalty for flying the 'Betsy Ross' flag sets off star-spangled fight
FoxNews ^ | June 15, 2014 | FoxNews.com

Posted on 06/15/2014 7:55:09 PM PDT by WhiskeyX

David Renner says he is facing a $200 fine for flying a Betsy Ross flag outside his townhouse in Littleton, Colo.

Renner tells Fox31 in Denver that he was issued the fine by his homeowner’s association for flying the flag last week ahead of Flag Day, June 14.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: betsyross; flagday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 06/15/2014 7:55:09 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I would send them an unsigned check written in my own fecal matter.


2 posted on 06/15/2014 7:57:44 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

HOAs are a pox on the nation. From experience, I’d rather have a neighbor with a rusting car in his yard than an HOA. The guy with the rusting car WILL be a better neighbor, even if he has an eyesore in his yard.


3 posted on 06/15/2014 8:01:16 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

He’ll probably fix your car for a few beers. Or Coca-Colas if he teetotals.


4 posted on 06/15/2014 8:05:06 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
I would agree with you, but in this case the guy sounds like he's just looking for trouble. He had previously been warned and then fined for flying a Gadsden flag and a state flag.

I don't like HOAs at all, and I'd never own a home in one of them. But in this case they really don't have any choice except to uphold the letter of the law. If they give any latitude to someone who wants to fly their own flag, then they'll have no recourse when the next guy wants to fly a Nazi flag or an Islamic flag.

5 posted on 06/15/2014 8:05:08 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

My neighbor is known as the “enforcer” for our homeowner’s association.

I just was walling my property line and realized that his patio and retaining wall are “on my property” and not ten feet back per the code. He will get the legal notice if he gives me trouble again.


6 posted on 06/15/2014 8:08:41 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Fly a rainbow flag and the EXACT same peevish held will cower... or high five.


7 posted on 06/15/2014 8:08:41 PM PDT by LittleBillyInfidel (This tagline has been formatted to fit the screen. Some content has been edited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

walling = walking


8 posted on 06/15/2014 8:09:24 PM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

We can make exceptions for American flags and other positive Americana. There is no need for holding people to the letter of the HOA law. Then, we can use common sense when someone attempts to fly a nazi or communist flag.


9 posted on 06/15/2014 8:10:40 PM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I don’t see any reason why they would put up any ordinance about the type of flag anyone would fly. I could see one about the size of flag or even the height of a pole or the number of flags or decorations allowed at a time.

The fact that a person could put out a Nazi or Islamist flag only allows for the neighbors to know who they are dealing with. A person flying one of those flags may be run off toot sweet and the investigation would more than likely be handled in the proper way, poorly.


10 posted on 06/15/2014 8:11:36 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I assume he was not forced at gunpoint to live there.

Rules are rules——you don’t like them go elsewhere.

.


11 posted on 06/15/2014 8:13:26 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

Then have the owners approve the exceptions and write these changes into the bylaws. I’ve had enough experience with legal and financial matters in condo associations to know how this sort of thing works. Trust me — you’d much rather have a board that seems excessive in its enforcement than one that is completely apathetic.


12 posted on 06/15/2014 8:18:03 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mears

“Rules are rules——you don’t like them go elsewhere.”

The HOA laws cannot supercede the 2005 Federal law permitting the display of the U.S. Flag, and the dispute is over the question of whether or not the Betsey Ross Flag with 13 Stars and 13 Stripes qualifies as a U.S. Flag protected by the 2005 Federal law.


13 posted on 06/15/2014 8:18:48 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Exactly.


14 posted on 06/15/2014 8:19:00 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

This guy should be careful before he makes a Federal case out of this sort of idiocy. That entire 2005 Federal law may not stand up to constitutional scrutiny.


15 posted on 06/15/2014 8:20:28 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Well, if he was flying a gay flag. no one would say a thing.
Or one of those Obama flags...Or a marijuana flag.....


16 posted on 06/15/2014 8:22:19 PM PDT by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole

Hey, what’s your problem with my car?


17 posted on 06/15/2014 8:29:23 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Hate to agree with the HOA on this but you’re only supposed to fly the current flag.


18 posted on 06/15/2014 8:30:03 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Because it would be SO HARD to write a regulation allowing any
US national flag from history, state flag or Revolutionary war flag.
Right?


19 posted on 06/15/2014 8:33:21 PM PDT by Kozak ("It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal" Henry Kissinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

I fly all sorts of flags: naval dont tread on me, army, 20th maine, gadsen. I have to explain the history to my neighbors. If i could find a confederate rgt flag i liked i would fly that.


20 posted on 06/15/2014 8:33:23 PM PDT by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
HOAs are a pox, but if you don't want to be under the thumb of an HOA, don't purchase a home subject to an HOA.

It's not rocket surgery.

21 posted on 06/15/2014 8:43:32 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
I do not and will not live in a covenant controlled community. That said, when David Renner purchased his townhouse, he was given a copy of the CCRs from the HOA. In fact he had to sign off on them per his real estate contract. In my opinion, since he is not displaying the current American flag, but a replica of a much older flag, he does not have a leg to stand on. Which may be why he went to the local TV news. He wants to try this case in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

I really have little sympathy for people that either do not read or try to ignore contracts after they agree, in writing to the terms. And that is what CCRs are, a contract amongst the homeowners in the community. The proper way to change them is to bring up the changes at the HOA meetings and VOTE on them. Just like changing laws. Only easier.

22 posted on 06/15/2014 8:44:40 PM PDT by Tupelo (I feel more like Philip Nolan every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired
He will get the legal notice if he gives me trouble again.

If you let it go long enough it becomes his property under "adverse possession" law.

23 posted on 06/15/2014 8:45:08 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

GOOD REASON to stay away from those communities. They are run by NAZIs.


24 posted on 06/15/2014 9:02:06 PM PDT by ZULU (Impeach Obama NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

One has to read the rules in any homeowner’s association.

When I relocated to Florida for our work, it was amazing to see all of these strict rules in these HOAs here. Some of the rules are overreaching personal freedoms.


25 posted on 06/15/2014 9:04:04 PM PDT by Christie at the beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1
it's an AMC Hornet, some people have standards.

26 posted on 06/15/2014 9:07:14 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Bathhouse/"Rustler" Reid? d8-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

David Renner should research the laws he’s citing before relying on them.

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 specifies that the protected flag in this case is the flag referred to in Title 4 of the U.S. Code. That flag is the current 13-stripe 50-star flag of the United States.

Renner is SOL.


27 posted on 06/15/2014 9:16:26 PM PDT by ConstantSkeptic (Be careful about preconceptions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I’m glad I don’t live under the iron fist of an HOA. As an American, I don’t appreciate other people telling me what I can and can’t do.


28 posted on 06/15/2014 9:20:27 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

I’d hoist the “jolly roger” and play “yo ho, a pirates life for me” on a loop. He’d soon be praying so sedate as a betsy ross flag. If that doesn’t break him I bring out the big guns: the theme music to “its a small world”.

CC


29 posted on 06/15/2014 9:20:41 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (tease not the dragon for thou art crunchy when roasted and taste good with ketchup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass

Nope 63 Studebaker, only trailer trash would have an AMC Hornet, nothing good from them after Rambler.


30 posted on 06/15/2014 9:25:50 PM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

Well, this IS Colorado.


31 posted on 06/15/2014 9:29:12 PM PDT by gigster (Cogito, Ergo, Ronaldus Magnus Conservatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo
Federal law is superior to any HOA regulation, signed or not.

The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 says, in part:

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.

As an aside, no American flag is ever considered obsolete.

32 posted on 06/15/2014 9:59:27 PM PDT by kitchen (Even the walls have ears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic

“The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 specifies that the protected flag in this case is the flag referred to in Title 4 of the U.S. Code. That flag is the current 13-stripe 50-star flag of the United States.”

Maybe the flag is and maybe it is not. At first glance it would appear the Public Law is trying to be specific about the current official Flag. However, the actual Public Law says: “section 3 of title 4, United States Code” is the definition of the flag being protected. Try quoting the cited “section 3 of title 4.”

[United States Statutes at Large, Volume 120, 109th Congress, 2nd Session]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

120 STAT. 572

Public Law 109-243
109th Congress

An Act

To ensure that the right of an individual to display the flag of the
United States on residential property not be abridged. NOTE: July 24,
2006 - [H.R. 42]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, NOTE: Freedom to
Display the American Flag Act of 2005.

SECTION 1. NOTE: 4 USC 5 note. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to Display the American Flag
Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. NOTE: 4 USC 5 note. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act—
(1) the term ``flag of the United States’’ has the meaning
given the term ``flag, standard, colors, or ensign’’ under
section 3 of title 4, United States Code;
(2) the terms ``condominium association’’ and ``cooperative
association’’ have the meanings given such terms under section
604 of Public Law 96-399 (15 U.S.C. 3603);
(3) the term ``residential real estate management
association’’ has the meaning given such term under section 528
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 528); and
(4) the term ``member’’—
(A) as used with respect to a condominium
association, means an owner of a condominium unit (as
defined under section 604 of Public Law 96-399 (15
U.S.C. 3603)) within such association;
(B) as used with respect to a cooperative
association, means a cooperative unit owner (as defined
under section 604 of Public Law 96-399 (15 U.S.C. 3603))
within such association; and
(C) as used with respect to a residential real
estate management association, means an owner of a
residential property within a subdivision, development,
or similar area subject to any policy or restriction
adopted by such association.

SEC. 3. NOTE: 4 USC 5 note. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED
STATES.

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential
real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy,
or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of
the association from displaying the flag of the United States on
residential property within the association with respect to which such
member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive
possession or use.

[[Page 573]]
120 STAT. 573

SEC. 4. NOTE: 4 USC 5 note. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use
that is inconsistent with—
(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States
Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or
use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to
such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or
(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time,
place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States
necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium
association, cooperative association, or residential real estate
management association.

Approved July 24, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 42:


CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
June 27, considered and passed House.
July 17, considered and passed Senate.


33 posted on 06/15/2014 10:32:48 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

It’s no ones business but yours what flag you choose to fly. HMO’s are run by HOMOs


34 posted on 06/15/2014 11:17:21 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

” you’d much rather have a board that seems excessive in its enforcement than one that is completely apathetic.”

I’d rather not have a board of busybody’s at all. I don’t know why people move in these type neighborhoods to begin with. The whole covenant thing sounds good until you realize it’s run by some queer lawyers


35 posted on 06/15/2014 11:22:17 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bgill

The one with 57 stars?


36 posted on 06/15/2014 11:23:50 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

You must be a wonderful neighbor


37 posted on 06/15/2014 11:25:32 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic; WhiskeyX
The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 specifies that the protected flag in this case is the flag referred to in Title 4 of the U.S. Code.

Actually The Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 references 4 U.S. Code § 3. § 1 and § 2 set the then current design and future changes. § 3, at issue here, sets penalties for Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag ... within the District of Columbia ..., but also defines ... [t]he words “flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein ..., the issue at hand. Nowhere is any flag referred to as old, superseded, obsolete, forbidden, etc. The law is mute on the subject. According to § 2 any new design necessitated by an additional state only ...takes effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission.

4 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - THE FLAG

4 U.S. Code § 1 - Flag; stripes and stars on

The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.

4 U.S. Code § 2 - Same; additional stars

On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission.

4 U.S. Code § 3 - Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag [in part]

The words “flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.


38 posted on 06/15/2014 11:30:20 PM PDT by kitchen (Even the walls have ears.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Nope.

“By law, a star is added to the U.S. Flag on the 4th of July following the admission of a State(s) to the Union. Thus the 27 different flags, each with more stars than the previous flag, as states were added over the years. However, it was not until the Executive Order of June 24, 1912, that the order of the stars and the proportions of the flag was prescribed.
Each of the former U.S. flags: 13 stars through 49 stars, is still a legal flag and may be flown at any time, as no U.S. Flag ever becomes obsolete.”


39 posted on 06/16/2014 1:01:27 AM PDT by beelzepug (You can't fix a broken washing machine by washing more expensive clothes in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kitchen
“As an aside, no American flag is ever considered obsolete. “

I assume READING has never been your strong suit. NO where in my post is the word OBSOLETE. But somehow you managed to see it.
As the old instructor once wrote on the board.
R.T.E.Q. then R.T.E.A.
Try it sometime.

40 posted on 06/16/2014 4:33:07 AM PDT by Tupelo (I feel more like Philip Nolan every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired
I just was walling my property line and realized that his patio and retaining wall are “on my property” and not ten feet back per the code. He will get the legal notice if he gives me trouble again.

You'd bettter give him legal notice asap. Don't know the laws of your particular state, but you might want to look up the term "adverse posession". If you don't object to his use of your property, he could claim it.

 

41 posted on 06/16/2014 6:25:48 AM PDT by zeugma (I have never seen anyone cross the street to avoid a black man in a suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Figment
I’d rather not have a board of busybody’s at all. I don’t know why people move in these type neighborhoods to begin with. The whole covenant thing sounds good until you realize it’s run by some queer lawyers

Try buying a new house in many areas without being forced to 'voluntarily' join one of these nazi organizations.

42 posted on 06/16/2014 6:31:24 AM PDT by zeugma (I have never seen anyone cross the street to avoid a black man in a suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

“confederate rgt flag”

I don’t know what that (rgt) means, but try these guys,

http://www.dixierepublic.com/

they’re real nice people...


43 posted on 06/16/2014 6:39:05 AM PDT by Peet (Liberals are the feces that are created when shame eats too much stupid. -Dale Gribble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Sorry, but I wouldn’t buy into a neighborhood . I prefer to have a home on my own terms


44 posted on 06/16/2014 10:35:24 AM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tired&retired

You need to give him the notice yesterday!

Seriously, you are allowing the creation of an easement by not enforcing the line.
.


45 posted on 06/16/2014 10:42:26 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; tired&retired

Not adverse possession, but Surface use.

Established use is the oldest and soundest form of land rights.


46 posted on 06/16/2014 10:48:11 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Bases are covered.... Thanks for the warning.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 4
(b) If

(1) The marking of boundaries on the property by distinctive markings on trees or by the implacement of visible metal or concrete boundary markers in the boundary lines surrounding the property, such markings to be visible to a height of 18 inches above the ground,

and

(2) The recording of a map prepared from an actual survey by a surveyor registered under the laws of North Carolina, in the book of maps in the office of the register of deeds in the county where the real property is located, with a certificate attached to said map by which the surveyor certifies that the boundaries as shown by the map are those described in the deed or other title instrument or proceeding from which the survey was made, the surveyor’s certificate reciting the book and page or file number of the deed, other title instrument or proceeding from which the survey was made,

then the listing and paying of taxes on the real property marked and for which a survey and map have been certified and recorded as provided in subdivisions (1) and (2) above shall constitute prima facie evidence of possession of real property under known and visible lines and boundaries.

Boundary markers are in place with triple ribbons on corner trees and survey maps are filed. I have been paying the taxes. Thus, the listing and paying of taxes on the real property marked and for which a survey and map have been certified and recorded as provided in subdivisions (1) and (2) above shall constitute prima facie evidence of possession of real property under known and visible lines and boundaries.

Helps when the law is on your side. Law is only as good as its enforcement..... Watched a video on Fox news this morning that was laughable as two joggers were commanding a huge black bear to stop... stop... stop.... and the bear kept right on coming! Enforcement was very much lacking!


47 posted on 06/16/2014 10:57:01 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
My point was that if he doesn't do anything about it he will eventually lose ownership of that slice of property.

Am I correct? No is a perfectly fine answer, if you actually know.

48 posted on 06/16/2014 11:13:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

He may have already lost the surface rights to that land.


49 posted on 06/16/2014 2:23:12 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

That’ll teach him to be Mr. Nice Guy. Thanks!


50 posted on 06/16/2014 2:24:33 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


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