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

Skip to comments.

Scalia Likens Reading Obamacare to Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Washington Free Beacon ^ | March 28, 2012 | Washington Free Beacon Staff

Posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:38 PM PDT by RobinMasters

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2012 2:05:40 PM PDT by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.


2 posted on 03/28/2012 2:09:56 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Reading it would be a daunting task, even with lots of coffee, no distractions, and a few weeks. Living under it as the letter of law, now that’s cruel and unusual punishment.


3 posted on 03/28/2012 2:13:12 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Well at least one of them has a brain.

Welcome to the real world USSC. We lowly citizens have to follow millions of pages of laws from the unconstitutional federal level on down and you filthy scum have seen fit to tell us that “Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse”.

Well you black robed morons even you don’t understand what congress has written nor does it seem you understand your job of protecting the constitution from the ruling class.


4 posted on 03/28/2012 2:20:36 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Actually we have to dump the bill to find out what the rats have hidden inside.


5 posted on 03/28/2012 2:21:27 PM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Oh come on Judge....If Obama read it (past tense)(cough, cough), you can read it.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 2:23:34 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

that’s what ya get for outsourcing this to the Reid-Pelosi Sausage Factory, Barry...


7 posted on 03/28/2012 2:24:04 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

Black robed morons is extremely disrespectful. Ashamed to see it on FR.


8 posted on 03/28/2012 2:26:05 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
There ought to be a constitutional amendment capping any bill to 30 (or some other arbitrary number) pages or less with the clear understanding that any bill longer than that is automatically unconstitutional.
9 posted on 03/28/2012 2:29:11 PM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

how do you measure your intellectual prowess to be superior to the SCOTUS?

Where did you get your law degree? Have you clerked for a justice?


10 posted on 03/28/2012 2:29:35 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Ditto.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 2:29:35 PM PDT by proudpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

It’s not that far fetched though!


12 posted on 03/28/2012 2:29:57 PM PDT by Joshua Marcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

so now NOBODY in DC has read or is able to understand the legislation that is to be Obama’s unprecedented legacy.. not even the people that supposedly wrote it.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 2:32:53 PM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
I truly believe that NO ONE has read the entire bill.
14 posted on 03/28/2012 2:35:08 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Scalia has one of those year blend of qualities one rarely finds in a SC judge brilliance of distilling complex issues into simple terms coupled with a great sense of humor which is oft reflected not only on the bench but also in the opinions he writes. He is the only justice who a reader of his opinions will guffaw while the reader is being enlightened.


15 posted on 03/28/2012 2:38:26 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Scalia has one of those rare blend of qualities one rarely finds in a SC judge, the brilliance of distilling complex issues into simple terms coupled with a great sense of humor which is oft reflected not only on the bench but also in the opinions he writes. He is the only justice who a reader of his opinions will guffaw while the reader is being enlightened.


16 posted on 03/28/2012 2:39:24 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Well then it is beyond your ability to understand these morons place Corporations, Unions, organization above us when it comes to campaign contributions.

It is “WE THE PEOPLE” and those 9 idiots completely eliminated the individual’s ability to have a say in who runs for office as their meager contributions are completely overpowered entities which are NOT We The People.

So go ahead and support them but it is obvious they don’t consider US citizens to be the REAL source of power and that is what the founders risked everything for.


17 posted on 03/28/2012 2:44:09 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

2,700 pages? Ouch. Anything that’s that complex is BS. It could be distilled to a single page, titled: “FU America”, by dems/lib-commies.


18 posted on 03/28/2012 2:46:38 PM PDT by carriage_hill (I'll "vote for an orange juice can", over Barry 0bummer and another 4yrs of his Regime From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

“how do you measure your intellectual prowess to be superior to the SCOTUS?”


Well I’ll type slowly so even you can understand seeing as you are attacking the messenger (nice Saul Alinsky left wing tactic by the way)

When your sole job is to make sure the actions of government are allowed by a rather simple document that has been around for a couple of centuries and even comes with a set of owner’s manuals (Federalist Papers) and you constantly puke out 5-4 decisions at least 4 of them are morons, possibly 5 and in the case of their decision in campaign contributions have proved all of them to be either morons or traitors.

It is WE THE PEOPLE not WE THE UNIONS or WE THE CORPORATIONS or WE THE ORGANIZATIONS. Got it?

The USSC has allowed the US Constitution to be trampled upon every day and people like you are too lazy to call them on it. I am not. I write to politicians everyday how about you or do you just Monday morning quarterback?


19 posted on 03/28/2012 2:52:17 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

now you have proved your ineptitude and inability to judge

Keep at it


20 posted on 03/28/2012 2:54:53 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

“There ought to be a constitutional amendment capping any bill to 30 (or some other arbitrary number) pages or less with the clear understanding that any bill longer than that is automatically unconstitutional.”

Congress might find it difficult to pack in enough corrupt backroom bargons selling out our liberty within just 30 pages.


21 posted on 03/28/2012 2:58:35 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
2,700 pages? Ouch. Anything that’s that complex is BS. It could be distilled to a single page, titled: “FU America”, by dems/lib-commies.

With Kagan not recusing herself or the other Justices not demanding she recuse herself, there's concern many Americans already have about the Justices as whole regarding pre-determined bias by Kagan. Kagan would not be permitted on any jury in the country, let alone to judge a case in which she was writing up opinons pre-law, at least in my part of the nation.

Secondly, wouldn't it be prudent for judges / justices to have read whatever it is they are ruling upon? The decision they make will affect Americans and America itself for decades to come. Since virtually no one has read the law in question, including those responsible for writing and passing it, it should be negated promptly.

22 posted on 03/28/2012 3:04:50 PM PDT by MamaDearest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

Yes to both your great points, MD. The Kagan point is obvious to me; the second one, less so. I thought they’d only be required to read it in excruciating detail after they formally opened the case, and not before. (Who could even cogently read that info-deluge and still be modestly sane, afterward?) Thanks for the legal lesson.


23 posted on 03/28/2012 3:13:08 PM PDT by carriage_hill (I'll "vote for an orange juice can", over Barry 0bummer and another 4yrs of his Regime From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; xzins; wmfights; blue-duncan

I just read the transcripts of today’s hearings and quite frankly it looks as if the court may rule 7-2 or 8-1 to declare the whole act void. Whether the mandate is constitutional appears to be a closer vote than whether or not the whole act needs to be tossed if the mandate is unconstitutional. I think the court is leaning 5-4 in favor of voiding the mandate, but there really is no legitimate argument for the rest of the bill to be upheld if the mandate is tossed. The only judge who appeared to be favoring the government’s position today was Ginsberg. Even Breyer and Sotomayor were beating up on the government’s position.


24 posted on 03/28/2012 3:25:07 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Gingrich or Bust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
When a Supreme Court judge makes a joke at your expense, you've got a real problem. I bet Mr. Kneedler relives that moment in his dreams nightmares.
25 posted on 03/28/2012 3:30:55 PM PDT by Shannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Nobody’s really ever read it. We need a make a law, take a law (off the books) federal legislation system. They can use words or pages, but they need to reduce the number of federal laws on the books. You cannot legislate every single possibility.


26 posted on 03/28/2012 3:40:35 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
The Obamacare bill was neither read nor debated by Congress, but just thrown together and shoved through by every political maneuver known. I believe that at least some one crafting the bill knew it was unworkable and would miserably fail and thus open the door for a single payer socialized medicine system.
27 posted on 03/28/2012 3:48:31 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

One of the worst (of many) things about this horrible law is that there are so many abdications of responsibility: there are many, many points which only say “the Secretary will determine later.”. In other words, these parts of the law are whatever the bureaucrats say it is.


28 posted on 03/28/2012 4:01:33 PM PDT by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I will never ever respect a person who has argued for the right to have sex with 12 year olds. if that isn’t a moron, I don’t know what is... Don’t care if they wear black robes or not. Not to even mention how they feel about the life of the unborn. There IS higher court than SCOTUS and a higher judge than them.


29 posted on 03/28/2012 4:03:14 PM PDT by DrewsMum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Black robed blowhards

Plenty of judges are hacks. Political appointees like Sotamayor to placate ethnic pressure groups. In some major corrupt cities you have to pay $5000 on up for a judgeship and you gotta know someone to get it. Calling them black robed morons is accurate for 50% on up of our judges


30 posted on 03/28/2012 4:06:36 PM PDT by dennisw (A nation of sheep breeds a government of Democrat wolves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MamaDearest

OTOH—If I were Kagan, I’m not sure that I’d want to be there for the deliberations—if the justices have a question about any part of the law, she would be the natural one to ask what does this mean, and if she doesn’t have a ready answer, it would look bad both for her and the law.


31 posted on 03/28/2012 4:13:08 PM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer; All
......it is obvious they don’t consider US citizens to be the REAL source of power and that is what the founders risked everything for.

Agreed.
Although your Constitution can only protect the rights you fight for, otherwise it's just a piece of paper.

The US Constitution was written for people who contribute. I worry it can't survive when 50% don't pay taxes, or as Obama would say, "have any skin in the game".

32 posted on 03/28/2012 4:44:55 PM PDT by fanfan (This is not my Father's Ontario. http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I’m so jaded I don’t know what to think. If it’s 7-2 or 8-1 or even 9-0 I’ll think “they did this so they can get a single payer system”.

Either way there are justices who are in on the fix. And I’m afraid there are more than 4.


33 posted on 03/28/2012 4:59:11 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Congress might find it difficult to pack in enough corrupt backroom bargons selling out our liberty within just 30 pages.

I have no problem with that. The more pages, the more possibility they can sneak stuff into a bill that nobody wants to spend the time to read -- and then one morning we wake up slaves to a bunch of self-serving bureaucrats.

34 posted on 03/28/2012 5:15:47 PM PDT by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; RobinMasters; xzins; wmfights; blue-duncan
I just read the transcripts of today’s hearings and quite frankly it looks as if the court may rule 7-2 or 8-1 to declare the whole act void. Whether the mandate is constitutional appears to be a closer vote than whether or not the whole act needs to be tossed if the mandate is unconstitutional.

Wow! Thanks you just made my day. I'm still pretty sure the libs on the court will circle the wagons, but if the whole law is voided it will make living with obama for 4 more yrs tolerable.

35 posted on 03/28/2012 7:11:07 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Wash your mouth out with soap. Obama and 4 more years will destroy our Constitution.


36 posted on 03/28/2012 7:13:39 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill; RobinMasters
2,700 pages? Ouch.

That's about five and a half reams of photocopy paper.

Someone should construct a maze and paper every inch of it with that bill. You're not allowed out until you've read the whole thing. ;)

37 posted on 03/28/2012 7:23:17 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
Wash your mouth out with soap. Obama and 4 more years will destroy our Constitution.

If it would stop obama I would in a second.

I try to be realistic. I don't see any way Romney beats obama. I don't see Santorum beating Romney. I'm giving what I can to Sen DeMint's "Senate Conservative Fund" and individual House candidates. It looks to me the best we can do is fight for divided govt.

38 posted on 03/28/2012 7:27:05 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

If gas remains where it is or God forbid goes to 5 or 6, Obama is toast. The economy will tank and inflation will keep rocketing north. Printing fiat money is causing all of this.


39 posted on 03/28/2012 7:42:59 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
If gas remains where it is or God forbid goes to 5 or 6, Obama is toast. The economy will tank and inflation will keep rocketing north. Printing fiat money is causing all of this.

Everything you're saying makes sense to a rational person. However, most voters will vote based on emotion and Romney is not trustworthy or likeable. Also, the libs will blame Congress and especially conservatives for doing nothing. The media will reinforce this view and it will only be conservative talk radio that counters.

The Pub party has negated the passion of the Tea Party and with redistricting the more out spoken conservatives are being pushed into tougher districts. Obama will get 98% of the Black vote. Obama will get 65-70% of the Hispanic vote. If Obama gets a majority of single White women and a majority of Roman Catholics he wins.

40 posted on 03/28/2012 8:01:38 PM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

He has lost the Catholic vote. Women are no longer seeing him as a safety net but more of an outsider. The Black vote may be at 90+ percent but turnout will plummet. As far as the Hispanic vote goes, they have no reason to support him as he could care less. Just wait until every extra penny you have to travel sets into the voter box.


41 posted on 03/28/2012 8:19:13 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

LOL. Lots of skeletons remaining.


42 posted on 03/29/2012 4:51:01 AM PDT by carriage_hill (I'll "vote for an orange juice can", over Barry 0bummer and another 4yrs of his Regime From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wmfights

I don’t see how they can find the mandate constitutional. It simply isn’t a program based on Congress’ taxing authority.

What it boils down to is an order. We are ordered to go out and take an affirmative action. Congress has had the authority to outlaw things they say we cannot do, robbing banks, murder, etc. It has the authority to regulate things that we do do. But, I simply can’t think of any Constitutional power it has to order us to take a particular action.

They write regulations, which are orders, for the military, but I don’t see that power against civilians, except as it concerns calling forth the militia. (Again the military).

To grant Congress the power to order behavior is an extremely dangerous precedent.

This attack on personal freedom is light-years worse than allowing agents to listen to possible terrorist phone calls, and that had the national media up in arms.


43 posted on 03/29/2012 5:47:34 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe
I don’t see how they can find the mandate constitutional. It simply isn’t a program based on Congress’ taxing authority.

I'm praying there are 5 judges that see this, but I recognize that there are 4 libs that think they are there to create policy. I'm worried that Kennedy, or even Roberts, may be so cautious that they want to be the "enlightened moderate" and will allow the mandate. A bold move would be to throw out the entire piece of garbage, but that really hasn't been their history.

I know most observers think getting rid of the mandate alone would be a big victory, but I think it wouldn't be. A re-elected obama would veto any bills getting rid of the rest of the law and without voiding the entire law health insurance companies will go out of business. I don't see Romney winning so a 2nd term for obama has to be part of the equation.

I don't know about others, but my business plans are currently on hold until I see how all this plays out. My long term planning is in trying to identify the best foreign locations for health care and what the real estate markets are in those areas.

44 posted on 03/29/2012 7:57:58 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress; xzins; P-Marlowe
He has lost the Catholic vote.

I wouldn't be so sure. They didn't budge an inch on requiring religious institutions to do things that violate their beliefs. It seems to me that they must have some internal polling that tells them they won't get hurt by this with Roman Catholics.

Women are no longer seeing him as a safety net but more of an outsider.

Married women and especially married women with children see this, but marriage rates are in decline as are birth rates. Unmarried women are big supporters of a "protective daddy state".

As far as the Hispanic vote goes, they have no reason to support him as he could care less.

This group is a great example of how conservatives shoot themselves in the foot by not differentiating between politics and policy. The heated response to illegal immigration and the TX Dream Act when Perry was running only served to reinforce the misguided notion that Pubs hate Hispanics, which drives them back to the Rats. The Pubs are right on policy but allow themselves to be manipulated into a weak position in public opinion, politics.

45 posted on 03/29/2012 8:14:12 AM PDT by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

That’s funny, but I can’t laugh. It’s my (and your) execution.


46 posted on 03/29/2012 8:14:59 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: immadashell

There ought to be a constitutional amendment capping any bill to 30 (or some other arbitrary number) pages or less with the clear understanding that any bill longer than that is automatically unconstitutional.


That would not solve the problem.

The Obamacare bill was replete (I think it was 87 places) with phrases such as “the Secretary [of HHS] will determine ...” The Obamacrats have already pumped out over 10,000 pages of regulations to implement Obamacare, and they are just getting started.

Last year, the Federal Register was increased by over 80,000 pages. It isn’t just the laws - it is the regulations. And that is just at the federal level.


47 posted on 03/29/2012 9:33:24 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

“I was elected to lead, not to read.” - “President” Schwarzenegger


48 posted on 03/29/2012 9:38:32 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
If this bill is/was so wonderful, why did it not go into effect immediately rather than "after" this year's elections?

The POS Dems that voted to pass it knew it is/was a disaster for them as proved in 2010.

So, what does the RINO establishment do?

They support Mitt Romney!

How FREAKIN' stupid can they be?

49 posted on 03/29/2012 9:39:56 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys=Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat, but they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; eyedigress; P-Marlowe

Catholics, women, and Hispanics.

Catholics have gone with republicans when republicans were defense republicans. Reagan bridged that gap real well because he both spoke the working man language and he was a defense republican. He got union job catholics because they were more John Kennedy than Teddy Kennedy.

That’s why the Obama slip with the Russian president was so important.

Middle class voters, in general, also see the gasoline prices, so pounding the pipeline and drilling issues are important.

Women truly are security motivated. That’s another reason that the Medvedev slip was important on top of the bad decisions regarding our missile defense system. Republicans could run a kind of reverse daisy add on Obama and get everyone worried about missiles again.

Hispanics will remember someone like Romney and his ignorant rejection of them during Romney’s Rick Perry attacks. The republicans best hope with Hispanics is the price of gasoline and other pocket book issues.

I think showing that Obama wantonly permitted Mexicans to be mowed down via “Fast and Furious” would hurt Obama with Hispanics, too. Then there are the traditional Catholic Hispanics who won’t accept a frontal attack on their church as long as pocket book issue and also clear to them.

Romney’s a terrible choice for the Republicans. The only one in which he isn’t “Richie Rich” or “Weird Anti-Catholic Religion” is the national defense issue.


50 posted on 03/29/2012 10:48:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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