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

Skip to comments.

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
The White House ^ | June 23, 2006 | Office of the press secretary

Posted on 06/23/2006 3:04:01 PM PDT by DaveTesla

Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall:

(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:

(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and

(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;

(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;

c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;

(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;

(e) acquiring abandoned property;

(f) quieting title to real property;

(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;

(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or

(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 23, 2006.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dustin; dustininman; eo; executiveorder; gopgivethratstaketh; inman; keloyearone; privateproperty; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-303 next last
To: Screamname

Your parents need to vote with their feet and let those tax hellholes like NY collapse.


151 posted on 06/23/2006 5:10:38 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
The good thing about this order is any one in the ranks of the
Federal Government violating it can be immediately removed from office.
In spite of the wining this is a good start.
Thank you president Bush Sir!
152 posted on 06/23/2006 5:13:35 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
I'm putting hope (maybe foolishly) in the new makeup of SCOTUS to start reversing some of the absolutely ridiculous decisions that have come down in the last 30 or 40 years.

I'll never forget Gingsburg referring to 'International Law' over U.S. laws.

I believe this is the case.

http://volokh.com/posts/1142657428.shtml

If this isn't the one, I'm sure someone here will stear me to the correct one in which she was speaking about.

If President Bush could get just one more appointment seated on the court, I believe we would start to see a real difference or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

Hanging onto hope is the only thing many of us have left.

153 posted on 06/23/2006 5:13:43 PM PDT by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
That's nice, but the real abusers are at the state and local levels!

State and local pols should follow suit in republican red state areas.

154 posted on 06/23/2006 5:17:36 PM PDT by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Agreed.
The president is not making law he is clarifying it and
stating he will enforce the Constitution at least in
regards to the Federal Government.
155 posted on 06/23/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Screamname
I'll bet they can sell their house for a LOT of money and relocate to a nicer place. A decent house here, with all the bells and whistles, a max, with a good size lot (an acre or more) will be around 250k, and that's a retirement kind of house (they'd be top of the line). If they're hooked up to city water and sewer, probably 5000 in taxes. Well and septic, probably 2500 in taxes. Their house is worth a lot considering it's in a really good location. They can set up an escrow and have their taxes paid annually. They just have to let go of the 'memories' and move on. Good luck. We got my parents to relocate from the city, and they love it now. They're in their mid 70's. They're living in a small town, about 500 people, 25 miles from the 'big city' of 75k.
156 posted on 06/23/2006 5:20:01 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Screamname

Where I live, if you claim a homestead exemption, in order to pay property taxes of 11k, the county must assess your home's value to be well over 2 million dollars, keep in mind, if your home is assessed for taxes at that rate, you could probably sell it for at least 4 mil, if not more. And keep in mind, this is in the city where property taxes are higher.

If you buy a home in the average middle class neighborhood here, and claim a homestead exemption, you're probably going to be paying a property tax in the $800-1600 range, and the higher numbers on that range begin to definitely bracket in the upper middle class.


157 posted on 06/23/2006 5:20:54 PM PDT by AzaleaCity5691 (6-6-06 A victory for reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Thank you Mr. President.


158 posted on 06/23/2006 5:21:57 PM PDT by ladyinred (Liberals are dangerous for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
My question is, does Sec 1 supercede Sec 3 ?

No, not from my understanding how it is written. In layman's terms, Section 3 addresses that question. It specifically states that however some may interpret whatever is written in Section 1, that interpretation cannot be construed to mean that the Federal Government is restricted or prevented from confiscating private lands, "according to law" (meaning, as long as the Feds follow the laws for confiscation, i.e., condemnation or other such methods, the takings are theirs).

159 posted on 06/23/2006 5:22:30 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Our FR pretend-conservatives are even now going into the spin mode."

Just as I said.

And here you are...

...already spinning.

160 posted on 06/23/2006 5:23:51 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion

Well, how about the Feds get out of the business of handing out money period?


161 posted on 06/23/2006 5:24:58 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
It specifically states that however some may interpret whatever is written in Section 1, that interpretation cannot be construed to mean that the Federal Government is restricted or prevented from confiscating private lands, "according to law"

Which probably didn't need to be stated because the president doesn't have the executive power to limit the application of Federal laws otherwise he would be violating his oath of office.

162 posted on 06/23/2006 5:25:03 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Czar
Spinning?

Oh, you mean I'm not part of the a-trade-deal-is-the-loss-of-sovereignty crowd?

No, I'm not. I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either.

163 posted on 06/23/2006 5:25:47 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

True. But it does act to clarify, in any event.


164 posted on 06/23/2006 5:26:40 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

But all the "lawyers" in the thread call it "toothless!"


165 posted on 06/23/2006 5:28:10 PM PDT by stands2reason (Rivers will run dry and mountains will crumble, but two wrongs will never make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

You are very right about our needing to take action.


166 posted on 06/23/2006 5:32:22 PM PDT by Maeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

The problem is they are not very savvy politically, much to their detriment. They are absolutely politically retarded for lack of a better word.

For example when Bubba Clinton ran for a second term, I told them about a zillion times DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS IDIOT! Do not do not!!! He is a freggin` sociopath! And I thought THIS time they wouldn`t, especially after the ten zillion scandals... And what happens? They voted for him anyway! AGAIN! Why? My mothers reasoning; "He is nice looking, I like him and I don`t think everything they say about him is true" and my Father: "Your mother told me to vote for him" (which is more proof for Ann Coulters theory that women should not be allowed to vote...They vote on looks and force their husbands to follow)

This is the depth of my parents political interest. This is how Hitler came to power; Germany must have been filled with clones of my parents... "Oh but that Hitler has such a cute mustache" Oh yes, and you think that is bad, you should see my Grandmother who is now 97 years old. Ronald Reagan to her was the devil, she hated his freggin` guts, and Jimmy Carter the greatest President that ever lived "He helped all those poor people in Cuba!" My brother is the same way...Hillary should be President and the US are the only trouble makers on earth.

I`ve come to a theory that there is a political retard gene in my family tree and by the grace of God, somehow I missed it. I thank the Almighty everyday after I talk politics with my family. "There but for the grace of God goes forth the blind yet I can see"


167 posted on 06/23/2006 5:33:00 PM PDT by Screamname (Does your terror group need a cheerleader? Call 1-800-Cindy-Sheehan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
While I applaud the sentiment, it's a sort of toothless order.

Pure pabulum indeed. As if "forts, dockyards, arsenals, and other needful buildings," included parks telecom rights of way, or non-governmental uses (The Nature Conservancy anybody?), but then, we know what GWB thinks of his oath of office.

168 posted on 06/23/2006 5:35:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
But all the "lawyers" in the thread call it "toothless!"

Toothless?


169 posted on 06/23/2006 5:35:33 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa; All
Ran across the following while on another thread. FYI

Analysis from U.S. News & World Report

170 posted on 06/23/2006 5:39:45 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
It is interesting that almost as many libs as conservatives are annoyed by Kelo and it's implications. As I wasn't really very cognizant of national politics in 1973 I can recall no SOCTUS decision giving me quite the sick, kicked in the gut sensation.
171 posted on 06/23/2006 5:39:48 PM PDT by RedStateRocker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Oh, you mean I'm not part of the a-trade-deal-is-the-loss-of-sovereignty crowd?"

No, I mean exactly what I said. By way of further explanation, I would say you are more properly assigned to the party-above-principle Big Tent GOP "Bush is our guy" crowd.

"I haven't read THE NEW AMERICAN in a very long time, either."

Not familiar with it but, considering your disparaging tone, I suppose it's something I should check out for that reason alone.

172 posted on 06/23/2006 5:50:26 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Czar
I would say you are more properly assigned to the party-above-principle Big Tent GOP "Bush is our guy" crowd.

This, from a guy who never met a conspiracy he didn't believe.

173 posted on 06/23/2006 5:51:52 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"This, from a guy who never met a conspiracy he didn't believe."

Ah, there you go again. Assuming facts not in evidence.

Don't blame me for your posting record.

174 posted on 06/23/2006 5:55:44 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Czar

Why are you always so unpleasant?


175 posted on 06/23/2006 5:57:24 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Why are you always so unpleasant?"

Would you believe me if I told you I try not to be?

I might ask you the same question.

176 posted on 06/23/2006 6:00:32 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Czar

I give as I get.


177 posted on 06/23/2006 6:06:44 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Huber
Whether it is legally toothed or toothless, it is still an example of the President using the bully pulpit to providing some visible leadership on a matter of principle. It would be nice to see more of this!

Well, it would be a much better use of the bully pulpit on a Monday than a Friday night. Unless he can sucker the Dems into taking the bait and launching into protracted howling, most Americans will never hear of this, and still believe that the loss of property rights from the Supreme Court's Kelo decision is still a potential threat to them.

178 posted on 06/23/2006 6:16:57 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"I give as I get."

So do I.

And quite happy to do so.

179 posted on 06/23/2006 6:20:56 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It might be noted that corporations are public.

Nope, 2 very different legal meanings of the term 'public'. A public corporation is still a private entity when it comes to defining 'public use'.

180 posted on 06/23/2006 6:21:15 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

Why is it that the government always gets an exclusion?


181 posted on 06/23/2006 6:26:31 PM PDT by gotribe (It's not a religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Thank you Congressman Billybob - I trust your interpretation!


182 posted on 06/23/2006 6:27:21 PM PDT by Chickenhawk Warmonger (All aboard the Chickenhawk Express... www.chickenhawkexpress.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
"You would be wrong."

I'm going to post a quote from an article on the U.S. News & World Report site discussing the President's executive order. This is a quote from Texas Senator John Cornyn (Rep.), who was asked about the President's order. Cornyn has introduced legislation into Congress that would "bar federal funding for any state or local projects in which the land was obtained through eminent domain," legislation which I support. I think Cornyn sees exactly what I did upon reading the President's order:

". . . 'This order appears to apply to a null, or virtually null set of government actions. ... I'm not aware of any federal government agency that takes property for economic development,' he said. 'It's an effort to appease the property rights base, while ignoring the difficult question of when eminent domain should be used to help downtrodden communities.' . . ."

I think Cornyn has it right. We need viable legislation to control the runaway excesses of state and local governments who repeatedly tread upon property rights in exercising their right of eminent domain. The President's Executive Order, which I think is a good thing in so far as it stakes out a position for the federal government, is really about politics in that it is attempting to put this issue on the agenda for this election year.

I would like to add that I also want it on the agenda, so I do applaud the President for his action. It occurs to me upon rereading my earlier post, which prompted your response, that you may have taken from my comments that I was implying that this was a cynical act on the part of the President, and that I discounted its importance for that reason. That was not my intention. I view this action as useful political calculation on President Bush's part. This issue should be before the American people.
183 posted on 06/23/2006 6:31:24 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn

You might want to read up on what the Trans Texas Corridor project really is (and not just how some of the anti-toll road groups spin and falsely portray it.) The ROW will be owned by the state and condemned by the state. No route will be taken unless the state approves and deems it in the interests of the state. The private company is only being awarded a construction, operations, and maintenance contract, which can be canceled at any time by TXDOT (subject to a formula for paying back the company's investment in the road that hasn't yet been recouped by toll revenue.) The road is simply an expansion of the existing I-35 corridor, but through rural areas instead of widening I-35 because the former would be cheaper and affect fewer property owners than the latter.

Basically it is just TXDOT contracting out construction, operation, and maintenance of a road to a private firm, while maintaining ownership. They already do that for many aspects of construction, so what's the problem?


184 posted on 06/23/2006 6:34:04 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: gotribe
"Why is it that the government always gets an exclusion?"

It is not an exclusion. The constitution spells out when
private property can be taken with compensation.
That means that we agreed to it by ratifying the amendment
in the first place.

The President just made a clarification to U.S. Government
employees/officials and any that do not follow may be
removed from job or office.
185 posted on 06/23/2006 6:37:46 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

The "glass half empty" crowd have noted this doesn't forbid local and state govt from taking property. Last time the President doesn't run local and state governments. So Bush is doing his part. This is good news.


186 posted on 06/23/2006 6:38:57 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla
The constitution spells out when private property can be taken with compensation. That means that we agreed to it by ratifying the amendment in the first place. The President just made a clarification to U.S. Government employees/officials and any that do not follow may be removed from job or office.

Yep.

187 posted on 06/23/2006 6:45:39 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: DaveTesla

This thread has obviously lost its focus. The basic fact is that the pres has signed an executive order which puts “on the books” law which is intended to protect private property ownership. It is now up to each of us, through our representatives and senators, to improve this law.

It’s a major achievement to have this law, with the ability to modify and improve it. Have at it. You can bet that there are hundreds of smart lawyers reaping the benefits of this law already.

I’m only glad to know that Bush actually knows he can do Executive Orders.


188 posted on 06/23/2006 6:46:11 PM PDT by Dale 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero

Nope, Kelo was in essence about the expansion of 'public use' to include takings strictly for 'economic development', and was that constitutional. The ruling was a narrow one that basically said that it wasn't in theory unconstitutional. But part of a court's opinion is often based on determining the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, the voice of the people via the ballot box. What this EO does is put the administration on record as stating that 'economic development' alone is not a 'public use'. As an elected office, the President is similarly a voice of the people, though it would provide a stronger foundation if Congress was to pass a similar law expressing its intent on how far 'public use' should be defined.

This is not at all toothless, it is rather another tool in the battle taking place on the legal front, giving judges in future cases more ammo to use if they choose to. And as others have noted, there are other ways in which this EO will curtail takings for economic development. It is a multi-faceted approach.


189 posted on 06/23/2006 6:48:45 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No one will be forced to drive on the TTC.

Yet we all will be forced to pay for it.
190 posted on 06/23/2006 6:51:35 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Yet we all will be forced to pay for it.

No you won't. It will be built by private money, maintained by private money, and enhanced by private money.

All you'll pay are the tolls, if you use it.

191 posted on 06/23/2006 6:53:47 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Screamname

LOL


192 posted on 06/23/2006 6:56:04 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

We are paying by loss of sovereignty. The foreign agents are another degree of separation of the American people from their duly elected representatives.


193 posted on 06/23/2006 7:06:31 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
We are paying by loss of sovereignty. The foreign agents are another degree of separation of the American people from their duly elected representatives.

When a conspiracy theorist runs out of arguments, he always pulls a charged word out of the air.

The charged word on this thread is "sovereignty."

194 posted on 06/23/2006 7:13:56 PM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
Now let's hope that State and Local government follow this great lead.

You can hope in one hand and......well you know the rest of the old saying.

Local governments are by far the worst offenders, and the buffoons who run those governments aren't about to do anything that would negatively affect their power to take private property. Until the state governments step in with their own laws (refer to old saying above, IOW never happen) the local yokels will continue to take property in order to increase the tax base and provide themselves with more money to waste on useless pet projects and grandiose monuments to their own self important egos.

195 posted on 06/23/2006 7:14:31 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish

There sure are some idiots 'round here.


196 posted on 06/23/2006 7:18:39 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: pissant

They must have had a bulk sale somewhere recently.


197 posted on 06/23/2006 7:21:03 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
so what's the problem?
The taking of private property.
The private company is only being awarded a construction, operations, and maintenance contract, which can be canceled at any time by TXDOT
This would be the same "private company", at such great risk of being cancelled, finding it somehow beneficial to put up it's own money to have the state take private property ?
198 posted on 06/23/2006 7:30:04 PM PDT by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lack of logic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree

People need to fix their state constitutions to prevent eminent domain. Unless their constitutions already do protect them from it, that is.


199 posted on 06/23/2006 7:38:02 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

You don't care about land or possessions, or so you say. So you take the side of the government condemning others. What about protecting those of us that do care about our land and possessions?


200 posted on 06/23/2006 7:39:18 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer ("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-303 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