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

Skip to comments.

Judges order Justice Department to clarify following Obama remarks on health law case
Fox News ^ | 4/3/2012 | fox news

Posted on 04/03/2012 3:26:28 PM PDT by tobyhill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last
To: Magic Fingers

Romney is syrup of ipecac, Obama is deadly poison. Both options suck but I’ll go with the up-chuckin’.


51 posted on 04/03/2012 4:59:06 PM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

The court should not ask what the administration believes. It is of little consequence - it is what the court believes that is at issue. Repeal the law and teach the administration about the Constitutional separation of powers and if he makes one weaselly peep, hear one of the natural born suits and disqualify the usurper. It time the court stop the nonsense and defend this constitution.


52 posted on 04/03/2012 5:00:08 PM PDT by DaveyB (Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. -John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

“Romney is syrup of ipecac, Obama is deadly poison. Both options suck but I’ll go with the up-chuckin’.”

Exactly.


53 posted on 04/03/2012 5:08:27 PM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

Right. My comment was that politicians on our side should be demanding - repeat - demanding that Obama explain himself.


54 posted on 04/03/2012 5:17:48 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“There is no way this Communist Slimeball taught Constitutional Law. “

Understatement of the century.


55 posted on 04/03/2012 5:26:23 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Solyent Pink is Sheeple!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no
Watch your ass folks. He wants to appoint himself president for life

I agree completely. The man is having his subjects in the lamestream media covering his corruption and the acorn groups fixing the election results. It is amazing how the man tramples the Constitution and yet Congress sits on their hands doing nothing.

56 posted on 04/03/2012 5:29:21 PM PDT by kindred (Jesus Christ is the Lord God and Messiah of Israel, a present help in time of trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no
Watch your ass folks. He wants to appoint himself president for life

I agree completely. The man is having his subjects in the lamestream media covering his corruption and the acorn groups fixing the election results. It is amazing how the man tramples the Constitution and yet Congress sits on their hands doing nothing.

57 posted on 04/03/2012 5:33:25 PM PDT by kindred (Jesus Christ is the Lord God and Messiah of Israel, a present help in time of trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I’m hoping the SCOTUS shoves it up his arse...This appeals court judge is just supplying the vaseline.

From all of us to you, Judge - Good on ya, yer honor!!


58 posted on 04/03/2012 5:41:06 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman

Oui!!!

OUI!!!!

Et sa fleur délicate d’une femme ainsi.


59 posted on 04/03/2012 5:47:42 PM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BAW

So they are asking for comment from the DOJ? Obambi will tell his darling Eric Holder what to say. Couldn’t they find another source for rebuttal? Holder will spin like Jay Carney did tonight!


60 posted on 04/03/2012 5:51:37 PM PDT by thrilling (ABO-----Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Liberal lawyers (most of the law profession) are re-educated to be filled with empty socialist slogans and revised history. Socialists have totally woven Marxist poitical activism with the law. They are anti-constitution and ignorant.

This is where the liberal gets mugged for hanging out with Marxists. The constitution is the only reason we have courtrooms, lawyers, judges, etc. Marxists do not respect the constitution’s division of power between three branches of government and they don’t respect the rule of law. The Congress and the Courts are out. The dear reader and his comrades reign supreme.

The Courts should have realized what was coming with Dear Reader told the Congress after the Dems lost the last election, that he would do what he wants in ruling over this country without the power and authority of the Congress.


61 posted on 04/03/2012 5:55:32 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; AnAmericanMother
There is no way this Communist Slimeball taught Constitutional Law.

That's correct.
The skinny little POS Ubama was basically a guest lecturer who was little more than a substitute teacher for the real professors.

Here is an interesting post from another freeper:

4 posted on Monday, April 02, 2012 8:27:56 PM by AnAmericanMother

"He was an "adjunct professor" = a non-tenure-track resume-enhancer for local lawyers to 'give back' to their alma mater. It's also a way for the law school to keep in touch with local law firms or (in Obama's case) do a favor for some influential local politician.

"I was an "adjunct professor" for years at my law school, but I was never under any illusions as to the importance of it or that it meant that I was a particularly learned person or great lawyer. I was helping out my school and getting something nice and public-spirited to put on my resume, nothing more.

"-- this sort of position I suppose is technically speaking a "professor" because it's in the title, but it is either unpaid or carries a very small honorarium. IIRC, I got the whopping sum of $200 for a whole semester's work. Didn't even pay for my outlay in gas and paper, never mind my time."

62 posted on 04/03/2012 5:59:42 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of time; ...

This is a bona-fide constitutional crisis. This is the beginning of the end.

UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith’s order to DOJ, is available here - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx.

In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president’s comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws “have troubled a number of people” and that the suggestion “is not a small matter.”

The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss “judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation.”

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president,” Smith said. “What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?”

Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: “Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?”

Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: “I’m referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed ‘unelected’ judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring to, of course, Obamacare — to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.”

In asking for the letter, Smith said: “I want to be sure you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.”


63 posted on 04/03/2012 6:00:08 PM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I think Obama has a good handle on the 5 branches of government


64 posted on 04/03/2012 6:02:52 PM PDT by woofie (It takes three villages and a forest of woodland creatures to raise a child in Obamaville)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

that is the only description for voting for Romney that makes any sense.


65 posted on 04/03/2012 6:03:35 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB

I think those justices just gave the admin. a shot across the bow. They are paying attention as they should.


66 posted on 04/03/2012 6:05:52 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Why are Obama’s students so quiet if he was “a professor”...I don’t believe he was, if I remember right when this issue was raised before....I understood he was never a professor or even and adjunct professor, he was ‘a guest lecturer’. So which is it?


67 posted on 04/03/2012 6:14:50 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

This reminds me of when I was in school and we got in trouble for something being made to write an essay of so many words. I used to write some very long sentences with as many extra words as I could muster.


68 posted on 04/03/2012 6:20:00 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no
He is the most dangerous man who has ever been allowed in the door of the White House.

He doesn't appear to have anye concern about what others might think about him. Tyrants are generally that way. Even Putin treats the American people with more respect than Mambo does.....and he's ready to pounce at any time in the near future.

69 posted on 04/03/2012 6:20:41 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Oh, I don’t know. He may be a Contitutional scholar. The question is of which country’s constitution is he a scholar?


70 posted on 04/03/2012 6:23:11 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: murron

Exactly. Perhaps they should have told him to write on the blackboard 100 times: “I went to Harvard Law School, but I don’t know anything about Constitutional law.”


71 posted on 04/03/2012 6:25:39 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Pigsley
I’ve seen a few of his “finals” questions—that he wrote. My, God. The man is a true bird brain.

I do believe he's not as smart as he's been projected to be...though his team certainly might drill him on his talking points etc. I think he's completely in the dark without those around him informing him.....basically he's a fraud IMO....with no history we can actually confirm or check out.

72 posted on 04/03/2012 6:26:52 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
The court should not ask what the administration believes

The court has a case in front of them... They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment.... They have a right to ask that question as they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.

It would seem rather odd for them to be doing so while at the same time the highest law enforcement official in the country is telling them that courts do not have the power to over rule things. Pretty clear case that the judges had a right to ask.

73 posted on 04/03/2012 6:32:14 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
The court should not ask what the administration believes

The court has a case in front of them... They were asking an OB lawyer what the WH meant by his comment.... They have a right to ask that question as they are about to make a ruling in a case in front of them.

It would seem rather odd for them to be doing so while at the same time the highest law enforcement official in the country is telling them that courts do not have the power to over rule things. Pretty clear case that the judges had a right to ask.

What will be interesting is if the Whitehouse even responds....

74 posted on 04/03/2012 6:33:23 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

“”Has the other two Constitutional selected departments of our government decided to go rouge?”

As long as they don’t go mascara I think we’ll be OK. “

Rouge = Red. It may not be a typo after all.

As long as we use it in the old context of Red = Communist.


75 posted on 04/03/2012 6:46:33 PM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers
I read right here that Romney’s far worse.

Yes, but Romney hasn't yet been allowed in the door of the White House, now, has he.

And, I wouldn't be hasty in disputing the "far worse" charge, either. The Democrats only detest us; a GOP insider could precipitate conditions that would sink the party.

We have entered what I would call "The Carthaginian Phase" of our national existence wherein the internal struggles between the major political parties have risen to a level where that is what consumes more and more of their bandwidth; the country itself be damned. We've seen the DNC on this track for fifty years, and we've watched with angst as the GOP follows the DNC's leftward drift, but witness more recent growth in GOP indifference to the voices of actual Conservative voters. Witness how the Romney campaign has been the catalyst for the appearance of a growing body of evidence of size of the rift between Conservative America, and establishment GOP leaders and pundits. See how the "go along to get along" wing of the GOP has now drawn a bright line of contrast between itself and Constitutional Conservatism as a governing philosophy, spurring the rise of a moniker that is an epithet to many, "establishment Republican."

Clearly, the GOP leadership are no longer interested in the input of anyone who's bent on building any real degree of resistance to the leftward drift of this country. They're happy to keep debating the left, and to stay to the right of them, and to maintain a measure of difference between themselves and the left, they just aren't going to debate TOO strongly, nor stay TOO far right, nor differentiate themselves TOO much; that would be too radical for their refined, Blue Blood, country club tastes. Besides, it might really make the Democrats angry, and they might yell at them, and use strong language, and call them nasty names.

Conservatives have read The Constitution, driven an iron spike into the bedrock, tied off to it, and said, "I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me."

In response, the GOP has increased its distance from Conservatives, made multiple attempts at redefining "conservative" further to the left, and generally indicated a willingness to consider making a complete break with its Conservative wing (and roots) should that become politically expedient at any future point, which they further intimate believing to be an inevitability.

Now comes Mitt Romney, standing on the poop deck of the good ship GOP, and — as it churns its way left — bids Conservatives abandon their Rock and throw in their lot with him. No doubt with Romney we'll be able to enjoy an Old Fashioned with ice scraped fresh from a passing berg. My what fun Conservatives will miss for having stayed rooted to their principles back there on the quay.

76 posted on 04/03/2012 7:02:22 PM PDT by HKMk23 (Those who are perishing refused to receive the love of the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no

And we don’t have the representation to remove him either. Holder should not be there after F&F. Spineless bastards these Republicans.


77 posted on 04/03/2012 7:09:16 PM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23

“The Democrats only detest us; a GOP insider could precipitate conditions that would sink the party.”

Obama detests the U.S. and is clearly precipitating conditions that will sink the country, and it will get exponentially worse if he has another 4 years to shred the Constitution and our freedoms. I am a Newt supporter, but I will not cast a protest vote (or refrain from voting) in the general election and thus help ensure an Obama victory.


78 posted on 04/03/2012 7:31:22 PM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

>> Article: referring directly to Obama’s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.

Why is the judiciary challenging political speech?


79 posted on 04/03/2012 7:37:17 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magic Fingers

That’s a sane position, but until the nominee is cast in stone, I don’t want to see the other contenders throw in the towel. If the nominee is gonna be Romney, I for sure want him to have a materially significant grasp of the reality that he was in NO WAY a shoo-in for the job; that there is a HUGE Conservative stripe through the heart of the GOP that WILL hold his feet VERY close to the fire; but that isn’t going to happen unless at least one of the other two top candidates FORCES Romney to take this Primary all the way down to the mattresses, and that’s what I want to see happen. I want this Primary to be a philosophical brawl over positions and issues all the way to the wire.

When it’s over, and we’ve got a nominee, I want to see whoever that is get up off the canvas, hitch up his belt, spit on his hands, look Obama square in the eye and say, “Alright you raggedy interloping commie bastard; you’re next!”

THAT’S who I want to vote for; somebody who’ll kick Obama’s corrupt, Chi-town thug ass to frickin’ Alpha Centauri.

WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!


80 posted on 04/03/2012 8:04:11 PM PDT by HKMk23 (Those who are perishing refused to receive the love of the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Here’s to him getting slapped down and off his pedestal. Enough is enough of him telling the court what to do. Just like he gave the finger to the last judge by not bothering to even show up. Who is he to tell them anyting?


81 posted on 04/03/2012 8:06:21 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Today, Mark Levin ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED Obama's premise that SCOTUS SHOULD NOT overturn Obamacare - which he [Obama] cited would be an UNPRECEDENTED action on the part of the Court.

BTW: Obamacare ONLY passed the House 219-212 and the Senate 60-40 ...

FIRST, Levin related to the audience that he has it on good authority that Obama is going to ask the Court to strike down the DOMA Act [as unconstitutional] in the near future.

BTW: DOMA passed 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate - WAY MUCH MORE MAJORITY than Obamacare ...

THEN, Levin played tape of Obama's remarks from Monday where Obama cited that Obamacare passed with bi-partisan support and with a substantial majority in Congress [which is an OBVIOUS lie] ...

LASTLY, Levin asked Obama that IF overturning Obamacare would be UNPRECEDENTED - then WHY would Obama asking the Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional NOT be UNPRECEDENTED ???

OBAMA = NUKED !!!

82 posted on 04/03/2012 9:23:21 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Yuppers, the Judge has asked the DOJ to pick sides, 0bama or the Constitution.
Then, the Judges will push back against 0bama, and if necessary the DOJ


83 posted on 04/03/2012 10:05:41 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Steven Tyler

Remember most all judges are pulled from the ranks of the DOJ. (this is not good btw)

So these DOJ lawyers with judicial aspirations need to think long and hard.


84 posted on 04/04/2012 7:21:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: oldenuff2no
oldenuff2no posted: It's plain to see that this foreign born impostor does not intend to leave the White House no matter what happens. He does not intend to let anyone, or anything, even the Supreme Court, overrule him. He is the most dangerous man who has ever been allowed in the door of the White House. We need to watch him like a hawk and take away any opportunity or excuse for him to stay. Watch your ass folks. He wants to appoint himself president for life.

You got that right.

Obama revealed his hidden agenda in Russia on the open mic; He didnt say "after the election, or “after the next election.” He said: “This is my last election" ....... reassuring the Ruskis that he'll then have "more flexibility after the election....”

Clearly his certainty WRT staying in offce is not based on his approval ratings or massive opposition to his cockamamie polices----mandated healthcare, trilllion dollar stimulus, using aborted babies' brains in lab experiments, giving himself massive power over Americans, co-opting religious beliefs, high gas prices......to name a few.

No. Ohaha's certainty stems from his knowledge that he will stay in office---not by the will of the people---but by buying the election, using massive vote fraud.

85 posted on 04/04/2012 9:41:03 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java

You’re bad. Very, very bad.


86 posted on 04/04/2012 9:45:05 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; oldenuff2no

This is one of the ways Ohaha intends to hold onto the WH.

REFERENCE Pew study: 1 in 8 voter records flawed
By Gregory Korte, USA Today, 2/ 14/12

WASHINGTON – More than 24 million voter-registration records in the United States— about one in eight — are inaccurate, out-of-date or duplicates. Nearly 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and perhaps 1.8 million registered voters are dead. Those estimates, from a report published today by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States, portray a largely paper-based system that is outmoded, expensive and error-prone.”We have a ramshackle registration system in the U.S.

It’s a mess. It’s expensive. There isn’t central control over the process,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for

Justice at New York University. Experts say there’s no evidence that the errors lead to fraud on Election Day. “The perception of the possibility of fraud drives hyper-partisan policymaking,” said David Becker, director of Pew’s election initiatives. But inactive voters do cost money. Inaccurate lists mean wasted money on mailings and extra paper ballots.

In Wood County, Ohio, home of Bowling Green State University, there are 106% as many registered voters as there were people in the 2010 Census. “We can’t explain it, but obviously having a major university here creates challenges to having our voter-registration list cleaned up,” elections director Deborah Hazard said.

Multiple registrations

Nearly 2.8 million people are registered to vote in more than one state.

Number of people registered in:

Two states — 2,688,046

Three states — 68,725

More than three states — 1,807

Source: Pew Center on the States

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act, known as the “motor voter” law, made it easier for people to register to vote by, for example, allowing them to register when they get a state driver’s license.

That same law also made it more difficult to remove someone from the voting rolls. Unless officials have a death certificate or written confirmation from the voter that they’ve moved, a voter must miss two presidential elections — that’s eight years — before they can be removed.

The problem is particularly bad in swing states, where parties, campaigns and others canvass the state registering voters, even if they’re already registered, and often collecting inaccurate information, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said. “Everybody’s registering you here,” he said. “We don’t really have control of that.”

Husted is asking the U.S. Justice Department for guidance on how to clean up the rolls before the presidential election without violating motor voter. “It undermines voter confidence and creates the potential for voter fraud where people could act and vote on their behalf,” he said. Pew’s solution: create a multistate data center to give officials voter registrations, motor vehicle records and death certificates from other states, allowing them to spot records that could be removed. That effort is starting this year with Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington.

“This gives election officials more control over their lists,” Becker said. Even so, the motor voter law still
applies: “Nothing happens automatically, and even more importantly, it requires something affirmative from the voter.” Hazard said Ohio has a similar system to catch voters who die in Ohio, or move within the state. But if a voter moves or dies elsewhere, they can remain on the rolls for years.

© 2012 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1


87 posted on 04/04/2012 9:46:55 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
(Fact Check)

Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?

A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.

"A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

"Singer (March 27):(e.m.) Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response."

Only the MSM refers to Barack Obama as a "Constitutional Scholar or Professor" none of which is remotely true. Obama is not even close to being a Scholar let along a Constitutional one.

88 posted on 04/04/2012 12:17:09 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Obama is unhinged.
Holder gets homework. HaHa!!
Kagan leaked vote. Most people guessed she did.
Obama backpedals to give himself and her cover.
Holder has to say that Obama believes in the constitution.
When the SCOTUS vote is made public 7-2 Obama won't be able to say a word.
He gets carried away in a white jacket.
Just daydreaming........
89 posted on 04/04/2012 12:23:59 PM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 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