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

Skip to comments.

Maher Admits Naivete, Thought "Right to Privacy" in Constitution (Coulter)
MRC ^ | 10:20am EDT, Monday April 28, 2003 | BrentBaker

Posted on 04/28/2003 8:19:50 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well- known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: "This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: "I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights." Maher then conceded: "You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to "privacy" was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the "penumbra" of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.

On March 28, Maher won the MRC's "Ashamed of the Red, White, and Blue Award" at our "DisHonors Awards: Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2002." His winner, from a November 1, 2002 appearance on CNN's Larry King Live:

Maher: "We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."

King: "And so we are hated because of this?"

Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

HBO's site for Real Time with Bill Maher, which has aired Friday nights at 11:30pm EDT/PDT: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/

Starting this Friday, Maher's show will be replaced for ten weeks by On the Record with Bob Costas. But the time slot will still feature left-wing anti-war activists: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins will be on Costas' first show this Friday.

When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030428.asp


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: constitution; costas; coulter; maher; righttoprivacy; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last
Maher has turned around alot since the onset of the war in Iraq. Denouncing those that continued to speak out against the President and the war 'after' its onset.

No Boys and Girls.. Bill has not been cancelled, Maher has just taken his act to Broadway opening May 5 @ the Virginia Theatre.

1 posted on 04/28/2003 8:19:50 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
constitution ping.
2 posted on 04/28/2003 8:21:54 AM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them.

This clown is obssesed with foreign aid, it's like some sort of utopian fulfillment for him, despite all evidence of how it's misused. He's just plain weird.

3 posted on 04/28/2003 8:26:09 AM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

But we can still slaughter about a million babies a year on the basis of a "privacy" right that does not exist. Roe v. Wade is make-believe law based on judicial fiat, not constitutionality.

4 posted on 04/28/2003 8:28:40 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Wheat is Murder! (Tilling slaughters worms.....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations.

What's the real scoop here. Doesn't the U.S. give out billions in foreign aid? Where can we find figures of this?

5 posted on 04/28/2003 8:29:32 AM PDT by jwalburg (Knowledge is power; power corrupts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

I simply cannot find the words to describe the stupidity and political blindness exhibited by his statement.

6 posted on 04/28/2003 8:29:47 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
"Frequently wrong, but never in doubt" describes a number of these pundits perfectly. I keep in my briefcase one of those little Cato Institute pocket copies of the Constitution which has proven invaluable in political debate - it takes 45 minutes to read it from cover to cover, including all the amendments and the Declaration of Independence to boot. For an investment of 45 minutes Mahr and his fellow travelers could actually know what they're talking about for a change. But it can be uncomfortable to find out, for example, that freedom from religion does not appear in the First Amendment and that the Second isn't as murky and cryptic as has been claimed. For the politically immature, uncertainty is merely a sign of weakness, and it is more comfortable to be certain than to be right.
7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:31:54 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
we're not granted anything by the Constitution. He's still an idiot.
8 posted on 04/28/2003 8:32:19 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Court first enunciated the right to privacy in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the Court ruled unconstitutional a Connecticut birth-control law. Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, argued (plausibly enough) that marriage was so important that the state had no business interfering with the privacy fundamental to a healthy relationship between husband and wife.

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred."

While privacy is not among the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has nevertheless ruled that a fundamental right to privacy is clearly found in the penumbra (shadow) of the First Amendment. Or the shadow of the Third Amendment. Or the Fourth. Or the Fifth. Or the Ninth. Or maybe it's the Fourteenth. Or perhaps it emanates from all of them; it's hard to tell with shadows.Daily Cnservative

9 posted on 04/28/2003 8:32:39 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay (occupied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
The question is not whether the word privacy is included in the constitution, nor whether it is implied. The question is whether privacy is a natural right, and therefore included in Ammendment Nine.
10 posted on 04/28/2003 8:33:37 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Here is another one for you Maher; neither constitutions nor governments grant rights.
11 posted on 04/28/2003 8:34:02 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
You reminded me....I'm going to get my grandson and his siblings to nand write the Bill of Rights this summer....(I'll pay them - as it's the only way they would ever do it.)
12 posted on 04/28/2003 8:37:39 AM PDT by goodnesswins (He (or she) who pays the bills, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I second your motion. I, too, carry with me the Cato Institute edition of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It fits neatly in any pocket. It's cleanly typeset. And Cato Institute will send copies for $1 each, as many as you choose, to anyone who asks through their website. (The $1 doesn't even cover the printing and postage costs. It's a good deal.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

Also, my latest UPI article on "The Iraq Constitution" is posted on FR.

13 posted on 04/28/2003 8:38:21 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob ("Saddam has left the building. Heck, the building has left the building.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
YES, we give the MOST in foreign aid....(because we have the most to give,) but per capita is how they get this statement I believe.....and then they usually compare it to how much countries spend on defense and use that against us, too.
14 posted on 04/28/2003 8:39:52 AM PDT by goodnesswins (He (or she) who pays the bills, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
I think we don't have the same sort of foreign-aid budget that we once did; it kinda fell into disfavor due to its rather outstanding lack of success in forwarding development of "developing" nations.
We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations.
I also think that that statement is socialist-speak. I suspect that if you look at private charity donations and not not just government "foreign aid", the picture is probably the reverse of what's indicated in the quote.

15 posted on 04/28/2003 8:40:34 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Foreign aid is one thing, foreign trade is another.

Europeans, who are so smug about spending a greater percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) on foreign aid, also have erected higher barriers than the U.S. against imports (especially agricultural products) from third-world countries.

I find that hypocritical, because I believe that most people would prefer to work, and earn, their way out of poverty instead of receiving charity.
16 posted on 04/28/2003 8:47:41 AM PDT by tictoc (On FreeRepublic, discussion is a contact sport.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery
No shortage of socialist-speak in that line! Perfectly true, too--leaving aside the fact that we're already taxed to the point of diminishing returns, and that even so there's still plenty of "misery" (as in, people living at a standard of living no better than that of a prosperous American farmer, circa 1820) to go around.

17 posted on 04/28/2003 8:48:35 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Correct our Rights were present before the
Constitution, ultimately a true "Right"
is given to man form God and therefore
government cannot challenge it.

Also, one the reasons we should throw
the term around and claiming we
have right to everything to
form a car to good dates.



18 posted on 04/28/2003 8:48:36 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution.

One time on Mahr's ABC show some Hollyweird Liberal stated that the Supreme Court was Constitutionally under the Justice Department and that Ashcroft would tell them what to do.

The Airhead was not corrected.

19 posted on 04/28/2003 8:50:23 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Soddom has left the bunker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete
"Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

I simply cannot find the words to describe the stupidity and political blindness exhibited by his statement.

Well find them, quick - because you took them right out of my mouth!

20 posted on 04/28/2003 8:52:00 AM PDT by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Exactly. The Constitution says nothing about the right of consenting adults to marry, yet there is no doubt that the right exists.

However, the 4th Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," To me, this means that as long as what you are doing in your house is lawful, the government has no right to investigate or interfere. Any law created specifically or unintentionally to allow the government to get around the 4th would be unconstitutional.
21 posted on 04/28/2003 8:54:22 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The $1 doesn't even cover the printing and postage costs. It's a good deal.

Ever notice how it is that eeevil capitalists will provide their political literature for free or at cut rates, whereas whenever you see street socialists with their pamphlets sprawled out on the table before them, they charge for every little piece of paper? What's up with that?

22 posted on 04/28/2003 8:56:20 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution.

Maybe he'll also realize the Constitution grants us nothing.

23 posted on 04/28/2003 8:57:44 AM PDT by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
What's the real scoop here. Doesn't the U.S. give out billions in foreign aid? Where can we find figures of this?

The US gives out more foreign aid than the rest of the world combined. Maher is, was, and always will be full of crap. I'll bet the self-righteous little twit doesn't drive a yugo himself.

24 posted on 04/28/2003 8:58:56 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
OK, but where do I look to find the figures on this?
25 posted on 04/28/2003 9:01:23 AM PDT by jwalburg (Knowledge is power; power corrupts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
Wonder how much money little bill gives to charity. Real charity that helps needy people, not organizations that sound good but just exist to help themselves.
26 posted on 04/28/2003 9:02:42 AM PDT by OldFriend (without the brave, there would be no land of the free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the Constitution...

A right to "privacy" was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the "penumbra" of the Constitution...

Can someone define for me exactly what makes up the "penumbra" of the Constitution?

-PJ

27 posted on 04/28/2003 9:03:18 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's not safe yet to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution,...

Too many "journalists" are willing to share their lack of knowledge about anything and everthing with us.

28 posted on 04/28/2003 9:04:17 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
read later
29 posted on 04/28/2003 9:07:22 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution.

Of course the Constitution grants no rights to the people. It explictly protects some rights and implicitly protects others. The closest it comes to explicitly protecting privacy is the 4th Amendment's protection of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searchs and seizures". This does not protect "privacy" in a general sense. It certainly doesn't restrict what sorts of behavior can be illegal, nor what sorts of things can be made "contraband". It just means that the government, at all levels, must have a good reason for searching and/or seizing your "stuff". It also means that they search and siezure action must be conducted in a "reasonable" manner.

30 posted on 04/28/2003 9:10:01 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Probably because the other airheads didn't know any better.
31 posted on 04/28/2003 9:11:12 AM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
One point - our rights are not limited to those enumerated in the bill of rights....

In fact at the constitutional convention, many were opposed to a bill of rights on the basis that the government might point to it and attempt to limit rights to those on the list.

So they stuck in a clause specifically to avoid that... the constitution makes plain that the listing is in no way meant to limit or disparage other rights retained by the people.

For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.
32 posted on 04/28/2003 9:12:05 AM PDT by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Here is another one for you Maher; neither constitutions nor governments grant rights."

Well, yes and no. It's clear that the philosophy of our Founders was that our Rights are natural.

But as a practical matter, if you live in an autocracy which denies you the basic rights that we enjoy, then it really doesn't matter how "natural" you think those rights are - the government in question has taken away your freedom to exercise those rights in any case. In that sense, our Consitution and the goverment it stipifies "grants" us our Rights. Philosophically, no, but practically, yes. In so far as we have citizens who have been willing to see the Constitution as (correctly) more important than whoever is holding political office at the moment. If you feel "recognizes and respects" a better word than "grants", then that's fine with me. Though practically, it can be a distinction without a difference.

Also, though I agree that "freedom from religion" and "privacy" do not appear in the Constitution, it's also true that the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible, yet most Christians agree that it is a canonical Truth which is implied.

The argument has always been where does "free exercise" end and "establishment" start? The fact that people disagree about this doesn't mean one is automatically trying to insert something in the Constitution that isn't there. Although with liberals, this is often the case anyway. :)

I simply wish people paid more attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Anybody in the Judiciary remember those?

None of this changes the fact that Maher is an idiot who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.

-King
33 posted on 04/28/2003 9:13:30 AM PDT by Kingasaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
You mean that the Constitution doesn't give us a right to privacy? Wow! Next thing you know, someone's going to say that the phrase "seperation of church and state" isn't in the constitution either!
34 posted on 04/28/2003 9:15:13 AM PDT by birdsman (I used to be a liberal. Then I had kids.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalburg
OK, but where do I look to find the figures on this?

Why bother? He just made up his figures on the spot. It takes liberals two seconds to pull their statistics out of their butts and it takes conservatives two months to mine the truth at the library.

Go for it.

35 posted on 04/28/2003 9:15:23 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
For the politically immature, uncertainty is merely a sign of weakness, and it is more comfortable to be certain than to be right.

Interesting observation but I would also observe that, true to their hypocrisy, these politically immature people insist on uncertainty from their opponents in the form of moral relativism. Although they are certain in their errors they refuse to be nailed down on anything. All is relative.

36 posted on 04/28/2003 9:17:25 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SarahW
For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.

More important is the fact that our rights are supposed to be safeguarded by the fact of a limited government. If we had a limited government, the Supreme Court wouldn't be parsing commas to figure out if the feds have the power to ban working toilets.

37 posted on 04/28/2003 9:17:28 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: fight_truth_decay
penumbra (shadow)

Look up the word. It means something even less than "shadow".

39 posted on 04/28/2003 9:22:37 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Can someone define for me exactly what makes up the "penumbra" of the Constitution?

Even though it's great sport to make fun of the term, it really was just a flowery way of saying that the right/protection under consideration is implied by something, or even more than one something, in the Constitution. As someone else mentioned, the 9th amendment, in particular, has a huge penumbra especially in regards to Federal government infringements.

40 posted on 04/28/2003 9:25:22 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SarahW
For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.

Well not really, since the enumerated list of rights, including those in the main body of the Constitution as well as those in amendments one through eight, is not long. It's just that those aren't all our rights.

41 posted on 04/28/2003 9:28:06 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
The Constitution says nothing about the right of consenting adults to marry, yet there is no doubt that the right exists.

Indeed it does, and it's protected from governmental infringement by both the 9th and 10th amendments. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, marriage was not a concern of government at least not of legislautres. It was a concern mainly of the churches, and secondarily of the courts. Hence "common law marriage", which is marriage outside both church and state.

The same is true of birth records. Those were strictly private and church business until much more recently than the late 1700s.

42 posted on 04/28/2003 9:33:40 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SarahW
So they stuck in a clause specifically to avoid that... the constitution makes plain that the listing is in no way meant to limit or disparage other rights retained by the people.

For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.


So sad.
43 posted on 04/28/2003 9:38:30 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Look up the word. It means something even less than "shadow".

Actually something more specific than "shadow". It's a partial shadow, caused by the light source not being a point, but rather an extended or area source, like the sun, rather than like a star. The area in the penumbra is only shadowed from part of the light source, not all of it.

44 posted on 04/28/2003 9:39:44 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
It's a mistake because she means to imply that those are our rights, and the constitution protects no others.
45 posted on 04/28/2003 9:45:31 AM PDT by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
we're not granted anything by the Constitution. He's still an idiot.

DING! We have a winner!

The quiz to spot morons from the left or right (or especially in a police uniform) is to ask:

"Name one unenumerated right."

Any statist JBT, of either the Hutchinson or Hillary flavor, will just stare at you as if you had two heads.

46 posted on 04/28/2003 9:47:41 AM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fight_truth_decay
When people get the idea that the ONLY rights we have are listed in the Constitution and bill of rights we are in deep trouble. We have many rights not listed.
The Constitution was written to limit the power of a central government, NOT to limit the rights of the people!!

Jack
47 posted on 04/28/2003 9:49:53 AM PDT by btcusn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
heh... they should pay you for the privilege ;)
48 posted on 04/28/2003 10:09:53 AM PDT by demosthenes the elder (If *I* can afford $5/month to support FR: SO CAN YOU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: btcusn
bump!
49 posted on 04/28/2003 10:10:10 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
You're right. I do genealogy as a hobby, and most birth certificates (state-issued) don't exist until around the late 1800's if you're lucky...1900-10 if you're not.
50 posted on 04/28/2003 10:22:07 AM PDT by Democratic_Machiavelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 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