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

Skip to comments.

GAY PRO-LIFE LEADERS ARRESTED AT NATIONAL PRO-LIFE MARCH
www.PLAGAL.org ^ | Jan 22, 2002 | PLAGAL

Posted on 01/23/2002 6:22:00 AM PST by helmsman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: Cu Roi
Like with Klinton, it's not really about the sex, it's the effect on our moral fiber that is of concern.
I don't care what they do in the privacy of thier own home, as long as it stays there.
It's when they parade thier perversions out in public that they cross the line. I don't want to be around perverts, and I don't want my children to have to be near them either.
And comments on the sex lives of elderly women belong in the bathrooms in Junior High school, not on a political forum. Grow up.
101 posted on 01/23/2002 8:30:14 AM PST by Psalm 73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
I know where you're going with this, but I refuse to entertain the notion that a reasoning individual cannot see the inherent injustice in murdering another individual who is innocent.

Does it surprise you to know that entire civilizations have been unable to see this inherent injustice? People have sacrificed individuals to their gods (which is what abortion is), allowed individuals to die so the social group would be stronger, eaten people for food (although that was often ritual), etc. etc. If you think I am only talking about ancient cultures without the benefit of modern science, I will point to the holocaust, black slavery, (much of which is going on today in sub-Saharan Africa), and the many examples of ethnic clensing that the last century delivered.

In Hinduism there are people who will allow a child to starve to death before touching him because the child is of the untouchable caste. They don't know the logic you are talking about.

The sanctity of human life is a concept that comes from G-d. It is not uniquely Judeo-Christian, because all peoples are descended from Noah and so all have some knowledge of G-d. But not all have acknowledged these concepts and many have found very rational, logical reasons to support their beliefs.

The fact that your logic doesn't agree either means you are of an inherently superior intellect (not impossible but it wouldn't be my first guess) or that your reasoning is influenced by the culture in which you were raised. Or, as it was put to me in my H.S. moral theology class, your viewpoint determines your point of view.

Shalom.

102 posted on 01/23/2002 8:34:17 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
"Nellie Gray has pro-life people arrested, but she accepted a telephone call from a man who says that it is part of his job to cooperate in the killing of babies. George W. Bush and his Attorney General are committed to enforcing "laws" that cause the arrest and prosecution of people who attempt to prevent an abortionist from killing a baby. Such arrests and prosecutions have taken place under Bush and Ashcroft, which means that Bush and Ashcroft have made themselves actual accomplices in the killing of actual babies, while professing to be "opposed" to the killing"

I thought you were a big Constitutionalist. If a law was in place before a president was sworn into office, the president can NOT summarily break laws by not enforcing existing laws, even if he and/or the head of the Justice Department don't agree with those laws.

Besides, you must have it all backward. Pro-choice mouthpieces were on TV yesterday accusing Bush and Ashcroft of doing exactly the opposite: NOT going after people and/or groups which target abortion clinics.

103 posted on 01/23/2002 8:36:44 AM PST by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
Good point however I doubt there is a "gay" gene and besides the liberals would simply make it illegal to check for one or abort if there is a gay gene.
104 posted on 01/23/2002 8:38:28 AM PST by ElConservadorLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Teacup
Yes, but remember that we were near the back of the march. Something could've happened far ahead of us and we wouldn't have seen it.
105 posted on 01/23/2002 8:40:46 AM PST by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: helmsman;khepera
"How can Miss Gray claim to stand for the dignity of all human life while at the same time denying gays and lesbians our dignity in openly defending the rights of all human beings to life?" asked PLAGAL Vice-President, Ms. B.A. Keener. She then went on to comment, "Most every group that attends the March for Life openly identifies itself with signs and banners -- be they Feminists, Democrats, Catholics, etc. It seems that PLAGAL has been targeted by the leadership of the March for Life simply because of their sexual orientation. PLAGAL and its leaders have a long and solid history in pro-life activism."

I agree with the decision to ban homosexuals from the march. God Bless Ms. Gray for standing tall and not allowing this blantant misuse of the rally.

This issue is about Abortion, not homosexuality. We need to stop dilluting the marches to the point at hand. Homosexuals that proudly display their immoral behavior are sidetracking the issue. If homosexuals keep their choices behind closed doors then it's a private affair and no one's business. They do not need to use a good honest, moral protest against murder to support their own agenda.

106 posted on 01/23/2002 8:43:49 AM PST by wwjdn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JenB
I have been told that the march is organized by the Knights of Columbus and that they are strict about who they let speak; is this true?

As far as I know, that is incorrect. Nellie Gray organizes the march and decides who will speak. The K of C only provides volunteers for the countless tasks that are involved.

107 posted on 01/23/2002 8:44:13 AM PST by Steve1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: helmsman; ArGee; Khepera; JMJ333; onyx, proud2bRC;
It appears that this "non-biased" article was taken from the Plagal website. Hmmmmmmmm.

I question the contention that the homosexual group was merely there to assert their Pro-Life views. If that were really the case, why did they find it necessary to carry a banner addressing their sexual proclivities, which in reality are a danger to life in both a physical and moral sense.? I don't think I saw any banners proclaiming, "Heterosexuals for Life".

IMHO, although I will not question their dedication to Pro-Life, I will question there assertion that it was their primary motive for attending the march. If they truly were only concerned with promoting the Pro-Life movement, they would have left the "sexual orientation" banner at home and joined hands with the contingency of all Pro-Lifers assembled.

I think this was a photo op for Plagal and they got the attention they wanted, I.E.: We homosexuals are persecuted even when we adopt honorable causes.

One need only view how the homosexual community attempts to disrupt New York City's annual St. Patrick Day parade. They ain't there because they're all of Irish descent.

108 posted on 01/23/2002 8:47:24 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
Whats the matter haven't you seen a talking fish before?
109 posted on 01/23/2002 8:51:15 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: EODGUY
"I don't think I saw any banners proclaiming, "Heterosexuals for Life"."

Good one. :-)

For what it's worth, I don't think their motives were purely for the protection of unborn babies, either, but not sure if this was the way for Grey to make whatever point she was making.

111 posted on 01/23/2002 8:55:04 AM PST by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
I was initially shocked by this, until a read some of the replies. Now I am of the opinion that:

If they were pro-life first then why is it necessary to march as a gay group? Sure they can organize, arrange transportation, etc through their gay organization - but at the march, blend in. But the fact that they insist on being a gay group, despite a history of being warned, it suggests to me that they have an agenda which is not primarily about pro-life. I don't think that this is an example of intolerant Christian morality - its more like someone putting lessons learned into practice.

112 posted on 01/23/2002 8:55:14 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
I've seen (and heard) a singing fish.:)
113 posted on 01/23/2002 8:55:59 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: madg
She would have to resort to some kind ?official? complaint to have the police enforce her will.

And I'm guessing PLAGAL they gave her one.

Shalom.

114 posted on 01/23/2002 8:56:51 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
Judging from PLAGAL's press release, I would have to agree they were wronged. We need all the help they can give us. If they can sway the homosexuals away from voting for the socialistic, immoral DemoRATS, great.
115 posted on 01/23/2002 8:57:17 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
Was it singing BRAAD to the Bone? Baby I'm BRAAD, BBBBBBRAAD, BRAAD to the bone!
116 posted on 01/23/2002 8:57:58 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

To: ArGee
If you think I am only talking about ancient cultures without the benefit of modern science, I will point to the holocaust, black slavery, (much of which is going on today in sub-Saharan Africa), and the many examples of ethnic clensing that the last century delivered.

Well, the holocaust occured in mid 20th century Germany, a Christian culture. The slavery which currently exists in Africa, let's take Sudan for an example, is committed mostly by Muslims. Islam is, of course, a religion that shares a common ancestry to that of Judaism and Christianity, with very similar moral teachings. Christian America, prior to the latter part of the 19th century, condoned and practiced slavery. The Roman Catholic Church conducted a mass extermination of defenseless fellow Christians (including women and children) in the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars. And, of course, it's abuses in regard to the prosecution of the Inquisition are well known to all.

Christian cultures have been, in many ways, just as barbaric and and inhumane as the pagan cultures that preceded. Now, I am thoroughly glad to see that modern Christians respect life.

118 posted on 01/23/2002 9:04:38 AM PST by helmsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb; wwjdn; ArGee; JMJ333; Notwithstanding; Khepera; onyx; proud2bRC
"PLAGAL President Cecilia Brown and Vice-President Eric Jurek were at the March for Life for the sole purpose protesting the 1973 Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion-on-demand. They were simply carrying the PLAGAL Banner -- which states the organization's name and "Human Rights Start When Human Life Begins." Brown, Jurek, and the rest of the PLAGAL delegation were approached by the officers and ordered to remove the offending sign. Consistent with their deeply held pro-life convictions, they refused."

What correlation is there between "deeply held pro-life convictions" and the inability to display those convictions without associating them with a homosexual orientation? I pray their Pro-Life convictions are sincere, but based on their behavior and refusal to put aside their "homosexual banner" in order to participate in the march (which was organized to display the deeply held pro-life convictions of all participants) I condend their motives are very suspect.

119 posted on 01/23/2002 9:09:33 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
How'd you know?
120 posted on 01/23/2002 9:11:00 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
My take on this is that they want more children to be available for adoptions so the bar will be lowered for them.

Of course. It's unthinkable that they might have an agenda that does not involve self-gain (rolls eyes).
121 posted on 01/23/2002 9:17:29 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Most people who believe in atheistic morality simply have no idea how much their culture has influenced their thought patterns.

"Atheistic morality" simply implies a morality uninfluenced by any form of theism. As such, it's not a defined construct so much as a definition of what it isn't. In other words, there isn't any single "atheistic morality" -- any morality uninfluenced by theism is "atheistic" in nature and there are any number of ways it could be expressed.
122 posted on 01/23/2002 9:19:23 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It's unthinkable that they might have an agenda that does not involve self-gain

Not unthinkable, but perhaps unusual.

Shalom.

123 posted on 01/23/2002 9:19:44 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Atheistic morality" simply implies a morality uninfluenced by any form of theism.

I "hear" you, but I can't figure out whether you're disagreeing with me, agreeing with me, or simply typing.

What point were you trying to make?

Shalom.

124 posted on 01/23/2002 9:21:31 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Comment #125 Removed by Moderator

To: ArGee
""Atheistic morality" simply implies a morality uninfluenced by any form of theism."

I "hear" you, but I can't figure out whether you're disagreeing with me, agreeing with me, or simply typing.

What point were you trying to make?


I get annoyed when people refer to "atheistic morality" as some terrible force of the 20th century, because you're placing blame on a property. It is possible to be an atheist, adhere to an "atheistic morality" and still be prolife.

I'm also pedantic to a fault.
126 posted on 01/23/2002 9:25:08 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Er, that is "abscence of property", not "property". Sorry.
127 posted on 01/23/2002 9:25:41 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Agree, agree, agree.

Nellie Gray does the pro-life effort a huge disservice, year after year, by excluding the very good people of PLAGAL. She is a disgrace to the cause and should step down immediately.

Wide ranging and unexpected voices such as those of PLAGAL, Pro-life atheists, Vegetarians for Life Feminists for Life strengthen and enrich the anti-abortion message in ways that all the Bible quoting in the world cannot.

Ms. Gray has been holding the annual March for Life hostage for too long.

128 posted on 01/23/2002 9:30:23 AM PST by hillsborofox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It is possible to be an atheist, adhere to an "atheistic morality" and still be prolife.

Of course it is, but it is impossible to know how much of your "atheistic morality" is caused by being raised in the United States, with a very theistic morality as its social undergirding.

Is it possible that if all the prolife atheists had been born in China that they would be fully in favor of the forced abortions the Chinese demand?

BTW: I notice that whenever someone wants to share their problems with homosexual attraction you are right there to take the opposing viewpoint. Just for my own edification, which of the following do you have trouble with?

  1. That we believe homosexual behavior to be perversion?
  2. That we attempt to persuade others to share our belief?
  3. That we think their perversion can be a problem for our social fabric?
Shalom.
129 posted on 01/23/2002 9:38:40 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Canavan; onyx; JMJ333; ArGee; Khepera; Notwithstanding; wwjdn; proud2bRC
"There were hundreds of other banners there, proclaiming "Hibernians for Pro-Life", "Kansans for Pro-Life", "Pro-life Moms." etc etc

Do you really mean to imply that identifying themselves as Hibernians, Kansans and Moms is comparable to a group idenfiying itself based on sexual persuasion/behavior that is not only morally corrupt, but also remains illegal in many states in our nation?

Do you think the Hibernians, Kansans or Moms would have refused to participate in the Pro-Life march if they were asked to leave their signs on the bus? The answer is an obvious no! Why then did the members of Plagal refuse? Again, the answer is obvious. They were more interested in being identified by their homosexuality than by their "pro-life" convictions.

130 posted on 01/23/2002 9:39:27 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: helmsman

They seem pretty sincere with the pro-life cause. People will have to judge for themselves if they have a hidden agenda. Some people have brought up that these people want more babies available for adoption. Maybe that's a valid argument, maybe not. Maybe abortion is just as squeamish to anti-abortion homosexuals as it is to anti-abortion heterosexuals.

So far I have no problem with them marching. Nellie Gray can prevent them from speaking as a guest if she wants, but let them witness to other homosexuals about the evils of abortion if they want. It's about the cause, the preborn victims, not the people running the show.

131 posted on 01/23/2002 9:41:53 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
"IMHO, it seems to be a subtle, clever ploy to promote the gay agenda within prolife circles (infiltration, co-option, slick PR) "

The PLAGAL members whom I've met and worked with simply aren't that way. Your supposition is wrong. But even if they were recruiting, they still belong and in fact strengthen the pro-life argument. Their voice is as legitimate as your own.

132 posted on 01/23/2002 9:42:28 AM PST by hillsborofox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
BTW: I notice that whenever someone wants to share their problems with homosexual attraction you are right there to take the opposing viewpoint. Just for my own edification, which of the following do you have trouble with?

That we believe homosexual behavior to be perversion?
That we attempt to persuade others to share our belief?
That we think their perversion can be a problem for our social fabric?


I don't have trouble with you believing 1 or 3 -- that's your decision. I don't agree with 1 or 3 however. In either case, I don't have a problem with 2 -- you are free to share you beliefs with others if you choose.
133 posted on 01/23/2002 9:45:58 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: pubmom
I agree, something is wrong.

I don't know, but I wouldn't want "Adulterers for Life" marching in the "March for Life" either.

134 posted on 01/23/2002 9:46:50 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"PLAGAL and similar groups (like Feminists for Life) have been trying for years to get media coverage of their opposition to abortion. "

Ten years ago or so, Nellie Gray tried unsuccessfully to exclude the Feminists for Life Executive Director from speaking with all the other recognized groups at the March. I guess she doesn't like feminists either.

135 posted on 01/23/2002 9:48:36 AM PST by hillsborofox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Or how about "Pedophiles for life?"
Ugh.
136 posted on 01/23/2002 9:49:52 AM PST by pubmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
I liked your statement and borrowed from it

What correlation is there between "deeply held pro-life convictions" and the inability to follow the orders of a policeman who is performing his duty and is considered to have authority over you.

137 posted on 01/23/2002 9:51:38 AM PST by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
Thank you Nellie Gray. This supposed homosexual organization is just a front, a guise to create publicity and turmoil within the pro life movement, because it knows that most pro lifers are anti homosexuals.
138 posted on 01/23/2002 10:00:09 AM PST by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
By the way, has the media reported on the March For Life? I haven't seen anything anywhere.
139 posted on 01/23/2002 10:05:35 AM PST by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Anybody who wants to know why the pro-life movement is held in such deep suspicion by most mainstream Americans--including many who oppose abortion--should read this thread. It's all here: the parochialism, the paranoia, and the hatred of those who are different. Nellie Gray has plenty of company, but not enough to sway even the Republican Party, let alone the Congress, to her side.
140 posted on 01/23/2002 10:17:01 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I don't have trouble with you believing 1 or 3 -- that's your decision. I don't agree with 1 or 3 however. In either case, I don't have a problem with 2 -- you are free to share you beliefs with others if you choose.

So, why do you always jump in? Is it just your pedantic nature?

Just curious. Not meaning to imply anything.

Shalom.

141 posted on 01/23/2002 10:17:59 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Fee
Ahhh... but not so fast!!! Liberals will abort all children who are NOT gay. They will have to do the politically correct thing and kill the normal babies.

Also, did you know that there is a genetic link between crime and race? Does this excuse someone of his/her crimes? People are capable of making their own decisions whether they are "genetically predisposed" to doing something or not.

142 posted on 01/23/2002 10:23:31 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; helmsman; hillsborofox; EODGUY; Khepera; proud2bRC
OK, the gauntlet is thrown down. The first three addressees refuse to answer one question:

Should "Klansmen for Life" be permitted? How about "Rapists for Life?" Maybe "Islamic Suicide Bombers for Life?"

There are people I don't want to be associated with. Not every enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I organize a rally it is not incumbent upon me to welcome everyone who claims they want to support my view.

Arthur, helmsman, hills, can you say that Nellie should welcome "Klansmen for Life" if they ask?

Shalom.

143 posted on 01/23/2002 10:23:55 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
"I don't have trouble with you believing 1 or 3 -- that's your decision. I don't agree with 1 or 3 however. In either case, I don't have a problem with 2 -- you are free to share you beliefs with others if you choose."

So, why do you always jump in? Is it just your pedantic nature?

Just curious. Not meaning to imply anything.


Pedantism usually, and I try to point out that stereotypes don't hold (not every homosexual is a self-obsessed sociopath with AIDS, as some FReepers insist). I do try to get at the root of people's beliefs and sometimes it involves pointing out that their beliefs are based on logical fallacies or untrue generalizations.

In this thread it's amusing to see how many are quick to assert that a group of homosexual pro-lifers must have an alterior motive because it's just impossible for homosexuals to care about anything but themselves and their sex lives. It also bothers me a bit, because I would hope that pro-lifers were so simply because they believed that human life should be protected and that human life begins in the womb -- not because it's just one of the many rules that they, as Christians, are supposed to follow and as such only other "Christians" are allowed to be in their little club.
144 posted on 01/23/2002 10:27:59 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Ahhh... but not so fast!!! Liberals will abort all children who are NOT gay. They will have to do the politically correct thing and kill the normal babies.

This is one of those stupid generalizations to which I referred earlier.
145 posted on 01/23/2002 10:28:44 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
In this thread it's amusing to see how many are quick to assert that a group of homosexual pro-lifers must have an alterior motive because it's just impossible for homosexuals to care about anything but themselves and their sex lives.

Actually, I believe it is an ulterior motive because I would expect them to put their signs away if they thought their signs were offensive.

But the sign was, evidently, the important part, not saving the lives of the unborn.

Shalom.

146 posted on 01/23/2002 10:38:43 AM PST by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: helmsman
These people take their hatred of homosexuals to absurd levels. There's no comparing homosexuality and abortion. We could use all the pro-life people we can get.
147 posted on 01/23/2002 10:39:46 AM PST by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY
I've seen (and heard) a singing fish.:)

Well, I've seen a horse fly and I've seen a rubber band, but never a singing fish... : )
148 posted on 01/23/2002 10:40:22 AM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Actually, I believe it is an ulterior motive because I would expect them to put their signs away if they thought their signs were offensive.

But the sign was, evidently, the important part, not saving the lives of the unborn.


I'm not referring to this specific event. I'm referring to the attitude of some in this thread (not many) of implying that homosexuals uniting for or against any issue isn't really about that issue but is about their sexuality and forcing it down everyone's throat.

Believe it or not, not every homosexual's life revolves around their sexual orientation, even if they do make something of a point of it.
149 posted on 01/23/2002 10:41:14 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
As I stated in previous posts, ArGee, if the members of Plagal were focused on showing their support for and belief in the Pro-Life movement, why would they make these "sincerest beliefs" secondary to being able to identify themselves by their sexual orientation?

Although other posters may not see this as a blatant "agenda based" decision, what else could it be?

150 posted on 01/23/2002 10:41:31 AM PST by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 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