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

Skip to comments.

News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed
AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; judgecarter; keyes; lawsuit; naturalborn; obama; orlytaitz; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,421-1,4401,441-1,4601,461-1,480 ... 1,641-1,648 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

Our laws or theirs?

If their laws permit it. we are bound by treaties to recognize their laws as it pertains to their citizens.

The typical liberal argument is that North Korea can declare all American citizens to be North Korean citizens to prevent anyone from being elected president based upon the Natural born citizen clause. It is a lousy argument, first because it deals with a premise that North Korea has power over people that never entered that country or were ever schooled there.

Obama did enter Indonesia and was enrolled in the state run schools there, his step father was a citizen and his mother became a citizen and spent the rest of her life there.His sister is a citizen of Indonesia as well.

Obviously we look upon Indonesia as one of those safe countries where even though they don’t allow dual citizenship, there is no stigma to being a citizen of Indonesia unlike North Korea where had Obama been made a citizen of that country by his stepfather the situation would be wildly different.

The Question then is why do we accept one over the other, Indonesia at the time Obama was there was a brutal Muslim regime which ruled with an iron fist equal to North Korea at the time.

People tend to forget that.


1,441 posted on 10/10/2009 1:15:37 AM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1437 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Watch this very funny video from Conan:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99370/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-sesame-street-does-health-care


1,442 posted on 10/10/2009 6:22:25 AM PDT by stockpirate ("if my thought-dreams could be seen. They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
Our laws or theirs?

I guess I should have been specific. My references to "the law" were to U.S. law. References to Indonesian law were identified as such, or intended to be. My apologies if I was not consistent in doing so.

If their laws permit it. we are bound by treaties to recognize their laws as it pertains to their citizens.

Yes, but we're talking about a minor child with presumptive U.S. citizenship as well.

The typical liberal argument is that North Korea can declare all American citizens to be North Korean citizens to prevent anyone from being elected president based upon the Natural born citizen clause. It is a lousy argument, first because it deals with a premise that North Korea has power over people that never entered that country or were ever schooled there.

It's a silly, specious argument, since we're talking about citizenship status at birth, derived from being born on the soil of the U.S. to parents who are, at a minimum, naturalized. Such a mischievous foreign claim would not be recognized by the U.S., either, with a rather glaring precedent going back to the earliest years of this nation. A war was fought over it; the War Of 1812. Of course, typical liberal arguments tend to assume that history began whenever convenient for liberals, so we should not be surprised.

Obama did enter Indonesia and was enrolled in the state run schools there, his step father was a citizen and his mother became a citizen and spent the rest of her life there.His sister is a citizen of Indonesia as well.

Yes, and so was (perhaps still is), Barack Hussein Obama, II. But, any argument that says he lost any U.S. citizenship in childhood as a result, is in error. His own parents/legal guardians could not relinquish his U.S. citizenship if he indeed had such citizenship, and certainly the government of Indonesia could not. Upon reaching the age of majority, it's a different matter, though.

Obviously we look upon Indonesia as one of those safe countries where even though they don’t allow dual citizenship, there is no stigma to being a citizen of Indonesia unlike North Korea where had Obama been made a citizen of that country by his stepfather the situation would be wildly different.

The potential stigma for Obama, to having been a citizen of Indonesia as a child, with presumptive, natural-born U.S. citizenship, would be the legal consequences of actions taken or perhaps not taken upon reaching the age of majority. Hostile, foreign actions regarding citizenship have ample historic precedent, and U.S. law does not recognize them. Neither does The Law Of Nations, nor modern international law.

The Question then is why do we accept one over the other, Indonesia at the time Obama was there was a brutal Muslim regime which ruled with an iron fist equal to North Korea at the time.

While I can't speak to circumstances in Indonesia during the span of time in question, I can speak to the legal reasoning behind the acceptance of U.S. citizenship being retained by a minor child, despite the actions of parents and foreign governments: Perkins v. Elg.

People tend to forget that.

After having put forth a fair amount of effort on this forum, regarding the Presidential eligibility issue in general, I'd say that most who make erroneous claims never knew to forget. There are also those who seek to deliberately sow confusion, whether out of some personal, wishful thinking or out of nefarious political motivations, I can't say.

1,443 posted on 10/10/2009 6:22:34 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1441 | View Replies]

To: mlo

It comes down to one thing. You guys think nobody should be allowed to disagree with you.
***Fascinating. That’s almost exactly what ST was saying over & over again just before the mod started calling her a “troll, duuuuuude”.


1,444 posted on 10/10/2009 7:00:57 AM PDT by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1423 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
“Let’s first address this from the “birther” perspective that, under older Indonesian law, Obama would have been stripped of his US citizenship after he was adopted. Since Indonesia did/does not allow dual citizenship; the United States would not recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when both countries agreed, as per the Hague Convention of 1930). Since Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia after his adoption, the United States could/would not have stepped in or interfered with the laws of Indonesia. In which case, he would become solely a citizen of Indonesia and would have had to become a naturalized American citizen when returning to Hawaii several years later - thus making him a naturalized, not “natural-born” citizen and, therefore, ineligible to serve as President of the United States.”

etraveler13:

This analysis ignores the Elg case. What parents and foreign governments do to expatriate and establish foreign citizenship of a child who is NBC at birth (not that BO II is) is irrelevant to POTUS NBC eligibility and not governed by Hague.

Indonesia simply cannot declare that BO II not a US citizen or not NBC just because Indonesia does not permit dual citizens. That is their view for their legal purposes on their territory, but is no way binding on US law or US POTUS eligibility.

You have raised in my mind the concept that BO II may have been made a de facto “child with dual fathers” by Lolo Soetoro’s formal or informal adoption in Indonesia.

Stanley Ann may have included BO II in her Soetoro divorce to deal with BO II’s Indonesian custody issue while not having any effect on BO II’s US citizenship, NBC status or US legal status as BO Sr’s child on HI records, which likely were never changed to reflect a Soetoro adoption.

1,445 posted on 10/10/2009 9:21:20 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1424 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

The US State dept does not even define NBC for Constitutional purposes.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes


1,446 posted on 10/10/2009 9:22:47 AM PDT by rolling_stone (no more bailouts, the taxpayers are out of money!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1426 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra
“No doubt you are trying to avoid the north korean citizenship argument and doing it badly. If Obama’s Parents had gone to North Korea and they had become citizen as well as made him a citizen then we have no choice but to accept that he would be a North Korean citizen.”

usmcobro:

If BO II were raised in NK as a dual NK-US citizen, he would certainly have trouble getting a security clearance, but NK could not unilaterally revoke BO’s NBC status of having both soil and blood citizenship (which he didn't).

All of these attempts to claim that another country could just declare all US citizens to be their citizens thus making their children dual citizens and ineligible for POTUS ignore international law which relies on soil, blood or both to establish citizenship.

That is the beauty of the founder's use of Vattel’s dual protection of soil and blood for POTUS, because it cannot be meddled with by foreign sovereigns under accepted international law then and now.

1,447 posted on 10/10/2009 9:33:14 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1435 | View Replies]

To: mlo
“There's no dispute that his father was British, or whether BO had British citizenship.”

mlo:

There is such a dispute.

As usual, you appear to be trying to ensnare the new, unwary or inattentive FReepers with a blatantly false statement.

RummyChick, I and others have pointed out that the BNA of 1948 cannot pass British citizenship to BO II if BO Sr’s marriage to Kezia in Kenya is verified by legal discovery in a US court to have resulted in a bigamous marriage in HI.

Are we to believe that BO II was British at birth just because he says to? The man lies all day every day! If BO II failed to be a dual citizen due to a bigamous parental marriage and he was actually born in HI (Ha!), it would be up to a US court to determine whether the child of a legally single US citizen mother with a non-US citizen sperm donor could be NBC eligible to be POTUS. Some claim certainty on both sides, but I don't believe any of us know how SCOTUS would rule on that matter.

1,448 posted on 10/10/2009 9:51:38 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Good morning...
I think it prudent to point out, gently, that what was being applied for, was Indonesian citizenship re: adoption. When you apply to the indonesian government, you submit to IT’S rules, not US rules FIRST. Its rules are very strick concerning dual citizenship. If the applicant does not want to lose US citizenship, they can drop the application.
In this case, the Soetoro family wanted the child to attend indonesian public school, to do this he must be an indonesian citizen, and since there is/was no dual citizenship agreement between the US and Indonesia, the parent of the minor child (5-6 years old) made the decision.
It is apparent that the adoption went thru, based on the divorce decree, which I submitted by link. It shows his name as Barry Soetoro. It is reasonable to then presume that his US citizenship (if it existed from the US and not British) was relinquished to accomplish this goal. As I showed in Indonesian law, he could, between the ages of 18-21 pettition the US for a Naturalized citizen status, not Natural Born citizenship. I gave you two examples of court cases to consider, neither of which involved becoming a citizen of another country. This precident seems to be unique, but covered. To date, we do not know if BO has applied for Naturalized Citizenship to the US as his files are sealed, but that would be the best he could get after adoption, Naturalized Citizenship, not Natural Born Citizenship.
I am really working hard to not be dense here, and it seems very clear to me. This is not a case of bullheadedness, rather, I think the opposite.
So, tell me where I am wrong in my assertion that his parents chose his citizenship due to Indonesia’s refusal for dual citizenship.
Hillary Clintons assertion that Obama was not adopted does not hold water, based on the divorce decree which clearly shows a name change.

Hope you had a good nights rest...


1,449 posted on 10/10/2009 9:56:31 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1432 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13

Is English a second or third language to you?


1,450 posted on 10/10/2009 10:01:38 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1449 | View Replies]

To: altair

I’ve been here over a year, after lurking for over a year before then. I came here through a friend, who kept sending me prayer requests from here. I actually joined for that purpose.

Much of what I read on this wonderful site on political issues, I agree with and feel no need to repeat what others have already said so well. Nor do I feel the need to post a response publicly every time a prayer request is sent out — although I read every one and forward to our church’s prayer chains as well as forwarding to my friend who is a Catholic, who sends out the requests on her church’s prayer chains.

If the fact that I agree with my fellow-Freepers on most issues addressed here, and that my primary reason for joining - and staying - was to find prayer requests and get them sent out to nationwide prayer chains, means I have serious issues, just because I disagree with the Freepers who seek judicial activism rather than legislative changes, and post on that issue ... so be it.


1,451 posted on 10/10/2009 10:24:10 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1440 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Walk with me thru this...

In order to be eligible and qualified to serve as the President of the United States you must be a “natural born” citizen, be at least 35 years of age and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5).
Whereas, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “ This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are: . at least 35 years of age . a resident of the United States for at least 14 years . a natural born citizen. Since allegiance of the potential President and Commander-in-Chief was the main concern of the Founding Fathers, ‘Natural Born Citizen’ has been understood to mean meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.


Your statement: So, you’re citing immigration and naturalization statutes, in an attempt at defining the Constitutional term of art natural-born citizen.


Incorrect, I am quoting the Constitution of the United States.

So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.


I have no problem with this statement. As it is clear that Natural Born citizen is defined as meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. So how is determination made for children born of two US citizens, on active duty for the military of the US, but not born on US soil? Hence the need for statutes to determine those cases
The U.S. law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of “natural-born” citizenship - one which confers “natural-born” status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama’s American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of “natural-born.”
So what we see here is the Constitution definition of Natural Born, really important only for the offices of President of the US and Vice-President, issues on Natural Born and Naturalized citizenship then mover to:

Title 8 of the U.S. Code to fill in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship


So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.


I believe I have demonstrated a general knowledge of the differences between Natural Born, and Naturalized, the constitutional defination and the Immigration and Naturalization processes, and even the additional terms spelled out above. Indeed most citizenship is determined by statute, and the Constitution provides the only defintion of Natural Born Status, again, required only for the office of President and VP, and from Personal Experience, high level clearances for the government also require Natural Born status.

It’s useful to remember, that a natural-born citizen is not dependent upon any law to determine his or her citizenship status. It is innate; a state of nature, without a doubt. Subject to the undivided, complete jurisdiction of the United States. No competing claims from foreign states, and no competing allegiance to such a state.


Where does this leave us? Well, we know that a child born of two US citizens on US soil certainly is a “natural-born” citizen. We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14). There is no clear precedent to extend the definition beyond that. So to those MSM who have so actively said, “He was born in Hawaii to an American mother, case closed!” - think again!

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (a U.S. citizen) and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (a National of Kenya and, therefore, subject of the United Kingdom). There is no American precedent which specifically suggests that “natural-born” citizenship might be conferred to a child of dual nationalities. Congress or the Supreme Court could easily make such a ruling so as to define “natural-born” status as conferred simply by being born on US soil, but doing so would not retroactively make Obama a natural-born citizen.

Yet, as I said earlier, legal precedent regarding the specific definition of “natural-born citizenship” is quite murky. Far be it from me to issue a finite definition of the term. All I’m seeking to prove here is that there is no justification for the self-righteousness I’ve seen in the MSM and other critics of the birther movement who assume that simply being born in America means one has “natural-born citizenship.” The people who make such suggestions only show their very limited knowledge of the legal precedent.

So, the question of whether or not Obama is, definitionally, a “natural-born” citizen is the first concern of those “crazy birthers.” It’s a concern, by the way, which is entirely unrelated to any conspiracy whatsoever. It’s merely a question of legal precedent. Doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy to me... it’s a pity the Supreme Court won’t hear any case bringing this issue up. Why? The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens don’t have “standing” to sue their president for this info. Why? Because a private citizen is not “uniquely damaged” by this problem. Lovely, right? God forbid the Supreme Court be asked to make a difficult decision on a matter of Constitutional definition which could massively effect the entire country...


1,452 posted on 10/10/2009 10:27:58 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1429 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Exactly...


1,453 posted on 10/10/2009 10:36:45 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1438 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
So, tell me where I am wrong in my assertion that his parents chose his citizenship

Under US law they can't do that. That's where your analysis breaks down. Even adoption cannot do that, nor can it make an alien child into a natural born citizen, although it can make them a citizen.

1,454 posted on 10/10/2009 10:57:12 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1449 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
So how is determination made for children born of two US citizens, on active duty for the military of the US, but not born on US soil? Hence the need for statutes to determine those cases

not by statute. By referance to what BP2 calls "founding era documents", in this case Vattel and Blackstone. Both make it clear that children born of citizen parents while those parents are serving the country, but outside of it are "natural born" citizens/subjects.

1,455 posted on 10/10/2009 11:02:35 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

By legally stating that Barry was still recieving help with his education and that Maya was the only minor child, the document clearly indicates that:
1. Barry is not a minor child, hence an adult (19yo)
2. Barry was adopted, hence part of the divorce proceedings to show his educational support.

So, it also ties in with his travels to Pakistan in 1980-81 which makes him 19-21 years old, which shows he was traveling with an Indonesian passport IMO.


1,456 posted on 10/10/2009 11:10:39 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1445 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

This is new law, you must go back to pertinent law of the time, ie: 1952 case law, which I have already enumerated.


1,457 posted on 10/10/2009 11:12:03 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1446 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

grin


1,458 posted on 10/10/2009 11:13:30 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1450 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

We are not talking about US law, we are talking about Indonesian law, and ITS requirements. Again, since Dual Citizenship was not possible then, the parents made the decision. I am sorry you don’t like it, but I provided case law from Indonesia that proved it.


1,459 posted on 10/10/2009 11:15:29 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1454 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

call it what you want, I call it
Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401


1,460 posted on 10/10/2009 11:17:35 AM PDT by etraveler13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1455 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,421-1,4401,441-1,4601,461-1,480 ... 1,641-1,648 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