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

Skip to comments.

What seceding from the U.S. will cost you
Marketwatch ^ | 11/17/2012 | Brett Arends

Posted on 11/17/2012 11:02:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Your state wants to secede from the union. What will this mean for your taxes?

I have good news and bad news. The good news is really good. But the bad news is really, really bad.

We’ll get to them in a moment.

Talk of secession is in the air. The White House this week confirmed that residents in all fifty states had submitted petitions asking to leave the union. Will the last one left please turn out the lights?

Residents in seven states, all in the former Confederacy, submitted more than 30,000 signatures each — enough that some hapless bureaucrat or intern will now have to take a look at their petitions.

The news comes 150 years after the Civil War, and just in time for Steve Spielberg’s biopic of Abraham Lincoln, the man whom we have to thank — if that’s the word I want — for the continued forcible marriage of the once-independent states.

It’s only a couple of years since Texas governor Rick Perry hoisted a rhetorical secessionist flag in response to Obamacare. In the last few years, anti-federal “10th Amendment” resolutions, emphasizing the primacy of states’ rights versus those of the union, have passed the legislatures of 12 states in the South and West. In five states, the governors signed them, too. (The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says states’ rights come before those of the federal government. The last time anyone in Washington actually paid attention to it, the ink was still wet.)

But what would any of this actually mean for your taxes?

The upside is you will be liberated from the sheer living hell of the federal tax code.

I don’t care where you live, and how badly run your local state government is. Nothing could be worse than this monstrosity.

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last
To: Windflier

the same thing that is holding back people from shooting cops if and when any of this happens

morals

who is going to be the first to shoot cops?

our nation is doomed


51 posted on 11/17/2012 12:57:12 PM PST by RaceBannon (When Chuck Norris goes to bed, he checks under it for Clint Eastwood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: x

It seems to me that there are three options available:
1. Accept the status quo & eventual loss of all freedom;
2. Peaceful secession - mass relocations & parsing the Treasury; or
3. All out revolution with all the attendant horrors.

Option 1 and 3 are non-starters. One is slavery; the other treason.
Option 2 is a viable solution; provided there is cooperation, something in very short supply in government.


52 posted on 11/17/2012 12:59:00 PM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
90 million armed citizens versus 600,000 federal troops. Ummm, which side would have the aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc. etc.? Which side is a trained military? I'd bet on the federal troops if it came to that.
53 posted on 11/17/2012 12:59:11 PM PST by conservaterian (NOW can we have a conservative candidate?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

10 or 12 years ago Staten Island seriously investigated seceding from NYC and assuming status as a self governing county per NYState constitution. The pros were release from Manhattan centered city govt, lower taxes, control over local schools etc. However the cost of reimbursing the city for facilities, roads, traffic systems, fire equipment and stations,hospitals, school buildings, water and sewer systems, continued connection to the city’s water supply and a host of other issues would cost so much that Islanders would see no positive financial benefit for 50 years. The issues of secession from the US would make the case of Staten Island seem like an adult child deciding to go out on his own.


54 posted on 11/17/2012 1:05:39 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

With a rational tax policy, a free Texas would become the Hong Kong of the West.

Productive wealthy people would flock to Texas from all over the world — including the blue states.

Also, Texas could join forces with Alaska to be the OPEC of the West.


55 posted on 11/17/2012 1:05:54 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I can’t begin to know what their dirty plans are but we do know that Fast and Furious was what zero called “working under the radar”. We shall see.

Of those 90 million gun owners a bunch of them didn’t vote for Romney apparently.

I hope it’s unlikely, but as I said before, given the extraordinary crap they have already gotten away with (getting re-elected despite the murder of Americans in Libya being the latest and worst) I won’t put anything past them.


56 posted on 11/17/2012 1:13:07 PM PST by Aria ( 2008 & 2012 weren't elections - both were a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
For most of you in the New Confederacy of the South and West, if you secede you will end up paying more in taxes than you do now, and you will get fewer government services.

So?? Where in the constitution does it say we need to have a FEDERAL Department of Education??

57 posted on 11/17/2012 1:24:41 PM PST by ExCTCitizen (More Republicans stayed home then the margin of victory of O's Win...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Let’s do it.


58 posted on 11/17/2012 1:34:28 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The article states that states like AL and LA get back more money in federal subsidies than they pay in federal taxes. I think that he's missing the point that ( I would think) a good deal of that excess is in the form of welfare and other payments to sub-populations that are overwhelmingly Democratic voters and who would, again I assume, largely choose to self-deport to Blue States than face the inevitable slashing of welfare subsidies that the non-Democrats of AL and LA would almost surely immediately impose on them.

I'm trying to put this nicely.

Anyway, it's a good article but I gotta say I'm not seeing much of a downside of us Red Staters in seceding from the Blue States.

59 posted on 11/17/2012 1:43:50 PM PST by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Politics lurch one way, then the other, but usually there's a reaction if somebody tries to go too far. The odds are good that we'll see a Republican Senate in 2014, and before too long, a Republican in the White House. I don't know if that will be enough, but it is something.

FWIW: "Mass relocations" usually aren't peaceful. They involve the loss of freedom for many people. The country's going to be very hard to divide up and a lot of people aren't living where they "should" be living.

60 posted on 11/17/2012 1:49:45 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Aria
Come to think of it zero might welcome this event.

This is EXACTLY what he wants! When he pals with the likes of Ayers---the same guy who discussed with others on how the death of 2-10 million would be an acceptable loss to secure their communist utopia.
61 posted on 11/17/2012 2:04:07 PM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian

You’d see defections from red-state active duty military en masse. That plus the state National Guards that would be the cadres for a future military. But there wouldn’t be a shooting war. Would make for bad TV in this instant video age.


62 posted on 11/17/2012 2:05:44 PM PST by teflon9 (Political campaigns should follow Johnny Mercer's advice--Accentuate the positive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
He's not counting the per capita bonus of repudiating Federal debt, the drop in electricity prices when power plants don't have to obey insane EPA mandates (ditto for gasoline), no more OSHA regulations, new gas, oil, and mineral exploitation and hydropower as Federally controlled property reverts to state hands.

I know it would be awful, all these states with economies like 1945-1970.

63 posted on 11/17/2012 2:14:46 PM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
all that rearranging is like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the titanic
64 posted on 11/17/2012 2:21:49 PM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
If we seceeded. We would STOP all those welfare payments to those groups causing them to.... flee to the North where they can once again be happy on the plantation having their every want taken care of including free Obama-phones!

Exactly! If secession ever happened the leaches would be the first to leave. Without them TX would be in a much better position to flourish.

65 posted on 11/17/2012 2:33:22 PM PST by pgkdan (We are witnessing the modern sack of Rome. The barbarians have taken over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

I don’t have a quibble with any of your positions or reasons. Regarding SocSec etc. - get it while you can.

I don’t advocate secession as such either, but I do foresee dissolution and the demise of a corrupted, bankrupt and unpopular central government.


66 posted on 11/17/2012 3:10:13 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans. Don't read their lips. Watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Many folks live in Mexico and other areas and are collecting their social security.


67 posted on 11/17/2012 3:10:37 PM PST by momf (Gun, mind, power shouldn't be followed by "control"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

“1. Accept the status quo & eventual loss of all freedom;
2. Peaceful secession - mass relocations & parsing the Treasury; or
3. All out revolution with all the attendant horrors”

Number 1 is not an option.
Number 2 won’t happen. Do you really think they are going to let their source of free money just walk out?
Number 3 is not treason no more than when our founding fathers did it. One man’s treason is another man’s revolution to throw off the chains of tyranny.


68 posted on 11/17/2012 4:18:15 PM PST by CodeToad (Padme: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: x
And all of a sudden employers would no longer want cheap labor? Nice dream.

It all comes down to enforcement. If those hiring illegals had to pay a sufficient penalty, the illegals would be unemployed, and they would self-deport. If the Free State of Texas had sensible laws for legal immigration that allowed guest workers to enter legally as needed, there would be even less demand for illegals. Like most who support secession, I don't object to legal immigrants, or to legal guest workers, just to criminals.

69 posted on 11/17/2012 4:19:16 PM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don't care.

I'm ready.

70 posted on 11/17/2012 4:19:39 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen
For most of you in the New Confederacy of the South and West, if you secede you will end up paying more in taxes than you do now, and you will get fewer government services.

When I secede, I will not pay any taxes and the only government "service" I want is to be left alone.

71 posted on 11/17/2012 4:28:38 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: x
Any kind of dissolution of the union is going to involve cooperation, compromise, and give and take between various authorities.

Sure there will, but that's another subject entirely.

The fact is, once a portion of a country has broken away from its former political union, it becomes a sovereign nation - not under the control of that political union it has left.

The remaining portion of that political union has no authority or rights whatsoever over the new nation. Whatever treaties, payments, etcetera that need to be worked out, will be done at the bargaining table as equals.

72 posted on 11/17/2012 5:17:05 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen
I sure don't like the Dept of DUMBING DOWN AND CORRUPTION we have now.... Mother-in-Law started teaching at 17, kept it up for 45 years...pretty good teacher. Lunchroom our son went to (in a country school so he could have his grandmother as teacher) the cooks cooked meals like they did at home - hot bisquits and gravy, fried chicken, etc.

If anyone had a problem, they went to school, principal was always available...problems worked out, none of the sensitivity training going on now was even thought of! plus, we all tried to live UP to the standards, not down so no one would get their feelings hurt.

By the way, I blame a lot of our school problems on the lack of PTAs - and that came from the people - not government.

73 posted on 11/17/2012 5:17:58 PM PST by momf (Gun, mind, power shouldn't be followed by "control"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: x
" 90 million armed citizens versus 600,000 federal troops. Not even the worst fool would challenge those odds."

What makes you so sure all those "armed citizens" want the same thing?

Well of course, they don't, but we both know that the vast majority of armed US citizens would resist overt oppression, attack, or subjugation by the military.

Though many libs are so solidly indoctrinated, they'd bear arms against their fellow countrymen in support of such treason, they (and that portion of the military who would obey such orders) would be far outnumbered by Americans of every stripe.

74 posted on 11/17/2012 5:26:56 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
We had aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc. etc. They had the will to fight against those odds. Do you still want to make that bet?
75 posted on 11/17/2012 5:28:59 PM PST by ExGeeEye (I'll give y'all 90 days for the wounds to heal; then we start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

In the 70’s several ranchers wives brought the wives of their Mexican hired help to our shop. We visited while they shopped - except when she had to go read the cards to them - and according to her, they had to go to the border to pick up their workers, with proper documentation, and after the period they were hired for, return the families to the border for return to Mexico. They were also responsible for the workers and their families, while they were in the United States.

Worked pretty darned good!


76 posted on 11/17/2012 5:41:17 PM PST by momf (Gun, mind, power shouldn't be followed by "control"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant

The more I think my way through the concept of secession, the more I like the idea. Here’s why:

If the regime pushes the people any harder than they’re now doing, or if the coming economic hardships and regulatory insanity cause even greater levels of anger, disillusionment, and resolve amongst the people to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, we may actually see one or more red state legislatures finally draft Acts of Secession, which would then be signed by all legally vested parties and presented to Washington.

Should Texas lead the way to the exits, I predict that at least half a dozen other states would follow in rapid succession, joining Texas in a new American Union. This would all be done without a single drop of blood shed between the rebellious states and the federals. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. No blood will be spilled over this purely political divorce.

Once several red states have disengaged themselves from the parasitic maw of Washington, the old union states will begin to falter, as the economic engine that feeds the Socialist system in this country will be too starved to meet its obligations. More red states will flee, as the days darken. Collapse and calamity in the blue states will ensue, as generationally crippled millions feed upon each other, then storm the gates of power, demanding to be fed.

Sheer bedlam will rule, and the statist infrastructure will crumble under the weight of too little real production, and too many takers to sustain.

When the old union reaches that level of failure, expect to see passionate entreaties to the former red states to reunite with the old union in a restored constitutional republic. Leftist ideals will be cast aside and burned, as reality proves what falsehoods they always were. Imagine an entire nation ‘mugged by reality.’

It’s at this point, that I see the re-unification of the country.


77 posted on 11/17/2012 5:52:00 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
our nation is doomed

No, you're just doomed because you've already decided it.

78 posted on 11/17/2012 5:56:13 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
"It’s at this point, that I see the re-unification of the country."

I think you have accurately described the future.

It will effectively be a restoration of the 10th Amendment, provided that the new association of seceded states is a treaty organization of independent sovereign states. If the Free States try to merge into a new centralized federal Nation-State, it will lead to a repeat of the same corruption we have now.

79 posted on 11/17/2012 6:00:31 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
"90 million armed citizens versus 600,000 federal troops."

Ummm, which side would have the aircraft, tanks, artillery, etc. etc.? Which side is a trained military? I'd bet on the federal troops if it came to that.

If the odds favor the federals so well, explain to me why they haven't already declared martial law and come for our guns?

You assume that most federal troops would obey the treasonous order to occupy their own country, and subjugate their fellow Americans by brute force.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wouldn't go down that way at all. An order like that would cause a meltdown of the military. Any traitor who obeyed such evil would likely be shot dead by loyal American troops. The good guys would lose some too, but not many, in comparison to the turncoats.

And you can bet that those troops who remained loyal to the Constitution, would have millions of armed American citizens ready to back them up at a moment's notice.

War game it out in your head, using some simple logic and reasoning. It wouldn't even be a contest, which is why it's never been (and never will be) tried.

80 posted on 11/17/2012 6:05:37 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

He neglected to mention that they will also no longer be bearing the cost of complying with federal regulations.


81 posted on 11/17/2012 6:07:52 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant
I think you have accurately described the future.

It will effectively be a restoration of the 10th Amendment, provided that the new association of seceded states is a treaty organization of independent sovereign states. If the Free States try to merge into a new centralized federal Nation-State, it will lead to a repeat of the same corruption we have now.

I think that's an accurate description of what the New United States would look like. In essence, what you're describing is a return to the letter and intent of our Constitution. I can just about guarantee that every secessionist state would sign onto that.

82 posted on 11/17/2012 6:09:21 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

well said


83 posted on 11/17/2012 6:15:26 PM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The red states shouldn’t succeed. We should just kick the blue states out. They’re the ones that have decided they don’t like the country as founded. If they want Marxism, let them start their own countries.


84 posted on 11/17/2012 6:48:03 PM PST by ThomasSawyer (Democratic Underground: Proof that anyone can figure out how to use a computer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThomasSawyer
"The red states shouldn’t succeed. We should just kick the blue states out. They’re the ones that have decided they don’t like the country as founded. "

Kick them out of what?

The founders wanted a loose association of independent sovereign states; not the strong centralized government bureaucracy that we have now. Even if we had a method to kick out the blue states, we would be left with a strong centralized government bureaucracy, which is the very problem we need to eliminate. Let the red states secede as they see fit, then they can freely form a more perfect union of independent sovereign states, like the founders described.

Secession would be a restoration of America, as it was formed by the founders. It is not a repudiation of America and its principles; it is traditional America's only hope for survival.

85 posted on 11/17/2012 7:13:28 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

I decided nothing, I just see the reality of it all

Outside of a shave your head and cover yourself in sackcloth and ashes revival, we are doomed


86 posted on 11/18/2012 4:30:16 AM PST by RaceBannon (When Chuck Norris goes to bed, he checks under it for Clint Eastwood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: momf
Worked pretty darned good!

I miss the rule of law. Obama's behavior is a huge step in the wrong direction, but we were already on that path decades ago. I hope we will return to following written laws before it is too late.

87 posted on 11/18/2012 5:03:58 AM PST by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
we are doomed

Well, alright then. Can I have your stuff?

88 posted on 11/18/2012 6:37:53 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
As of 2011, the US Army and US Marine Corps have a total of about 4500 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in service, with approximately the same number of M1 tanks in storage. The US Army operates about 80% of the total US tanks.

More math: That is 90 tanks per state. About 4 tank companies per state.

Now lets' do the math by county shall we?

There are 2,992 counties in the United States

That means 1.5 tanks per county. LOL.

89 posted on 11/18/2012 6:45:56 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Only after the rapture


90 posted on 11/18/2012 10:19:05 AM PST by RaceBannon (When Chuck Norris goes to bed, he checks under it for Clint Eastwood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
It all comes down to enforcement. If those hiring illegals had to pay a sufficient penalty, the illegals would be unemployed, and they would self-deport. If the Free State of Texas had sensible laws for legal immigration that allowed guest workers to enter legally as needed, there would be even less demand for illegals. Like most who support secession, I don't object to legal immigrants, or to legal guest workers, just to criminals.

Okay, but I suspect you'll have the same problems with enforcement that we have today.

If Laredo is 95 percent Hispanic, McAllen, 89 percent, and Brownsville, 86 percent, it's going to be hard for non-Hispanic police or enforcement officers to cope with illegals, and Latino police or enforcement officers (or those of any ethnicity) are going to be faced with a lot of pressure to allow what's been going on to continue.

Also, the idea that Texas is somehow all of one piece may not fly. Texas may be faced with internal secession movements itself.

91 posted on 11/18/2012 11:46:40 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

“Because we would stop paying for most of the crap the federal government does. Those states the article mentions that receive so much more in federal assistance than the rest of the nation... just happen to have the largest percentage of blacks, which disproportionately use welfare and over federal government handouts.
If we seceeded. We would STOP all those welfare payments to those groups causing them to.... flee to the North where they can once again be happy on the plantation having their every want taken care of including free Obama-phones!”

Or, because those groups are a growing demographic, they could vote their own into power and have all the social programs reinstated.
Then the seceded states can pay for all that without any help from other states or the federal government.
The secession now folks here at FR are deluding themselves...first by thinking secession will ever actually happen, and second by thinking it would play out according to their fantasies.
I personally think they’ve been listening to too many Hank Williams Jr. records lol.


92 posted on 11/18/2012 12:01:54 PM PST by snarkybob (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant
The founders wanted a loose association of independent sovereign states; not the strong centralized government bureaucracy that we have now.

No. If that is what the founders had wanted they would not have torn up the Articles of Confederation (which we lived under between 1781 and 1789) in favor of the constitution which provided for a much stronger central government. You need a history lesson, with special attention to the Annapolis convention called by James Madison.

The founders sought a balanced government with distinct powers. They purposefully abandoned the loose association of interdependent sovereign states.

93 posted on 11/18/2012 1:49:55 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Melas

****** The founders sought a balanced government with distinct powers. They purposefully abandoned the loose association of interdependent sovereign states.” *******

And that is exactly what we Lack ... Sovereign States

TT


94 posted on 11/18/2012 11:07:55 PM PST by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

bump


95 posted on 11/21/2012 7:33:15 PM PST by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 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