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.
Arizona makes secession preparations State resolution creates 'insurance policy' against martial law
By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
An Arizona state legislative committee has approved a resolution calling for the dissolution of the federal government in the event that it abolishes the U.S. Constitution, declares martial law or confiscates firearms -- scenarios some say are not unrealistic. Critics of the resolution, however, call the measure a "total waste of time."
Rep. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican and chair of the House Committee on Federal Mandates and States' Rights, authored the resolution which the committee approved 3-2. Only the committee's vice-chair, Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, abstained from voting.
Specifically, House Concurrent Resolution 2034 outlines the origin of the United States, emphasizing the sovereignty of the states and their constitutional right to "establish a new federal government for themselves by following the precedent established by Article VII, Constitution of the United States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles."
It also articulates constitutional violations committed by the federal government as justification for the measure, saying "... the fifty current principals, or signatories, to the [Constitution] have done well in honoring and obeying it, yet the federal agent has, for decades, violated it in both word and spirit. The many violations of the Constitution of the United States by the federal government include disposing of federal property without the approval of Congress, usurping jurisdiction from the states in such matters as abortion and firearms rights and seeking control of public lands within state borders," says the resolution.
By adopting HRC 2034, Arizona states its intention to dissolve the current federal government with the approval of 34 other states and, in essence, start over. Participating states would re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution "as the charter for the formation of a new federal government, to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the reorganization of a new judiciary," in keeping with the original intent of the "founding fathers." Individual members of the military will return to their respective states and report to the governor until a new president is elected.
In addition, each state will assume a prorated portion of the national debt and will own all land within its borders. After the new government is formed, the remaining 15 states will be permitted to join the revised union upon application, as was the case with the original union.
A three-year veteran to the Arizona Legislature, Johnson told the Sierra Times the resolution is "insurance policy." "If the federal government declares martial law or attempts to confiscate guns, the states shouldn't have to put up with that," she said.
Joseph Stumph, well-known author and historian, testified in favor of the resolution at the hearing.
"We're proposing that if things get as bad as they could get, that these states won't allow the federal government to put us into a one-world government," said Stumph, who is publishing a similar proposal in his home state of Utah. "I don't expect we'll get 35 states to sign on. The American people are not educated enough on this yet," he added.
The resolution was introduced Jan. 26, and now needs to be approved by the Arizona House. Should HRC 2034 successfully complete the legislative process, it will appear on the November ballot for voter approval. But one legislator does not think the measure will be taken seriously.
Rep. Bill Brotherton, a Democrat member of Johnson's committee, called efforts to promote the bill a "total waste of time."
"Obviously ... one of the more important issues we have is mental health in this state," Brotherton said mockingly. "I wonder if we are going to have a bill on the grassy knoll next to decide who shot Kennedy."
Johnson said she was asked by several Maricopa County residents to look into preventing the federal government from asserting power not authorized by the federal and state Constitutions. To Johnson, the resolution is a watered down, limited version of the "Ultimatum Resolution," written and promoted by Stump.
Johnson said HRC 2034 was introduced in response to recent actions by the Clinton administration regarding the Grand Canyon. On a recent trip to the landmark, President Clinton declared three new national monuments, threatening the property and livelihood of ranchers in the region.
Fears of martial law and firearm confiscation are mere "conspiracy theories" to some, but in light of the elaborate preparations government made for potential Y2K problems -- including a ready-to-sign executive order giving Clinton the equivalent of dictatorial powers -- "these fears have become real possibilities," according to Johnson.
Johnson also made it clear that the action of possible secession should only take place if the federal government suspends or violates the Constitution without approval from the state.
"There may be times when the nation may be at war, and such steps may need to be taken. But the states should have a backup plan if necessary," she said.
Arizona is not alone in its fears. Johnson noted other legislators in other states are considering taking similar steps.
Despite her current success with HRC 2034, Johnson is not relying solely on non-binding resolutions to ensure state sovereignty. She has been joined by a coalition of six other Arizona state representatives, private ranchers and other states' legislators in a lawsuit filed against the federal government.
The lawsuit is an attempt to reverse creation of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, which covers more than 1 million acres of land, roughly the same amount as Grand Canyon National Park. The group says national monument status will affect use and access to its private property, which will be surrounded by the federal property.
It also asks the court to find the 1906 Antiquities Act, used to create the Parashant monument, unconstitutional. The coalition's lawyer claims the president "has taken the act to the point of actually abusing the rights of people in the West."
The act gives presidents emergency authority to protect threatened federal lands or "objects of historic and scientific interest," but lawyer Lana Marcussen said that in using the act for a non-emergency case, the president has gone too far.
See Henry Lamb's column:
Repeal Antiquities Act!
Julie Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.
Jan. 26
thanks for the update
hardly breaking news...thread here
Might be a bit dated, but after this past weekend, this is something every state (and every sovereign citizen) should be doing.
Yeah. You wouldn't want to listen to such a right-wing loony idea. After all, the loonies seem to be the only ones that get it right. And the loonies share such dangerous ideas that concentrated power in the hands of the few is a danger to the many.
The Einsteins that oppose this measure must not be paying attention. The loonies knew since 1993 that Clinton was a left-wing jackbooted tyrant. We have now been vindicated. Of course, Clinton and his media shills will try to deprive us of due credit.
But it's pretty hard to disguise the face of left-wing totalitarianism as this past week has shown. Sure, it would seem that the majority still doesn't get it.
But I think this jackboot invasion by Clinton and his commie-loving cronies has planted a seed of doubt in the minds of many. Some Demolibs don't seem particularly concerned with what happened in Miami. After all, Cubans don't vote for them because one life experience under tyranny is enough, thank you very much.
But what the Demolibs don't realize is that I believe the Cuban-American community is going to show up in November with numbers not seen before. Their frustration and anger will be aimed at Bore and the entire Democrap Party. And rightfully so.
Something never resolved since the War Between the States was whether/how states can succeed from the Union. I like the fact that this legislation puts folks on notice - so it won't be such a surprise...
The Case for a Constitutional Convention
Let me know when Alexander Hamilton shows up then I will enthusiastically sign on.
Bttt!.Good Job Sir!
I would think Florida would be the second in line to sign on to this plan, considering what Reno's Gestapo did this weekend. Seven years ago, such ideas would never have been considered in this country.
The fact that states are now making contingency plans for secession is Bill Clinton's real legacy.
BTTT
BTTT
bump...
remember the destroyer of the constitution, the impeached creep...
... Clinton's real legacy ...
Which may be another way for Clinton, or whoever is controlling Clinton, to realize his ultimate goal. If he can't destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. directly, why not break it up? Either way, freedom and capitalism lose influence in the world.
No, I think not. America must remain strong and get rid of the real disease at work.
Hey bud how ya doin? Where can we go in Arizona to sign the petition?
I am sick to death of hearing folks in the West bitch and moan about federal "land grabs" threatening their "property" or "livelihood." The truth of the matter is that persons who rely upon federal land to make a living are little more than welfare recipients. If you pay less than market rate to graze your animals on federal land, you are receiving welfare from the federal government, at the expense of other taxpayers. If you pay less than market rate to cut timber on federal land (and have the feds pay to build you an access road), then you are receiving welfare from the federal government. You have no entitlement to this welfare. The federal government restricting your right to use resources not owned by you to make a living is not a "land grab." It is not your land. And I am tired of paying for you to make a living while you degrade the resource. In 1997, the last year for which records are available, the federal timber sale program lost $1.2 billion. Let's be clear about this: In giving out the right to cut timber on public lands, and accomodating the removal of this timber, the taxpayers shelled out $1.2 billion in a year. This is corporate welfare at its worst. I am prepare to be flamed for this, but those who stand up for this degradation of resources at taxpayer expense have no business calling themselves conservatives.
Uh, I don't think that's the point here. Either that or I'm entirely missing the point of your post. Something about public land. SO? Did you happen to be watching the news this weekend? Have you ever had a .40 caliber Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun stuck up your nose for no reason?
The fed is not allowed to "own" land. Under clinton we can see why.
the issue of secession was settled by president lincoln...
I am prepare to be flamed for this
Spew this crap in Colorado and you will get far worse than flamed. Out here we think anybody east of KC is just another jackass that screwed up their state and now wants to come here and ruin ours.
I come from a long line of ranchers. Ride a mile in my saddle before you bring your east coast socialist crap here.
It's a step in the right direction, but a small one. It would take 34 states as they have set it up to make it work. I don't know if that could ever happen. One can dream though.
I think the Southern party is working towards the same goal, maybe they can work together in some way.
A big YES for Arizona...............
WarHawk42
Something about federal land-grabbing that concerns me is the fact that a lot of the lands they grab do possess potentially valuable resources. As I was researching the crisis of high gas prices our country has been experiencing, I discovered that some of the most promising areas with the most potential to have petroleum or natural gas have been set aside by the fedgov as national parks or some other federal stuff. I would rather see the lands and their resources used wisely than to see more of them end up in the fedgov's hands. Perhaps there are some stinky facets of the federal farm subsidies program, but there are even worse consequences on our national self-sufficiency and our dependency on other nations for national resources. Some of that land-grabbing prevents us from supplying ourselves with the necessary resources.
the issue of secession was settled by president lincoln...
No the issue wasn't settled. The north managed to win a bloody brutal war, but the question has never been settled.
WarHawk42
I'm amazed at the foresight of these legislators. I'm sort of surprised that one of our Southern states didn't do it before a Western state did. There's always been a lot of talk about secession down here ever since the Civil War. It's important to note that secession should be a last resort, however. I hope it doesn't come to that.
Might be a bit dated, but after this past weekend, this is something every state (and every sovereign citizen) should be doing.
In Maryland? Not bloody likely.
Maybe it's time to move to Arizona.
Like clinton's land grab in Utah to prevent the mining of low sulfur coal? That was to pay back his buddy's in the Lippo group wasn't it?
And the republicans have let that stand.
WarHawk42
Some of that land-grabbing prevents us from supplying ourselves with the necessary resources.
Temporarily, at least. If it ever really comes down to it, it will still be there and we won't have used it all up. :^)
You're aiming your anger in the wrong direction. Just what part of the Constitution authorizes the federal government to own this kind of land anyway?
There would be no so called "corporate welfare" if the federal government operated within the confines of the Constitution. The land would be privately owned, as it ought to be, and the landowner would do what he may with it, as it ought to be.
But what about his main point, that those who graze cattle at below market costs on Federal land are receiving a government subsidy? Or is "socialism" defined as "public subsidies for people I don't like" and capitalism as "public subsidies for me and mine?"
Socialist? I think someone has something a bit backwards, here. You are upset that I say you should not be allowed cut-rate access to public resources for you to make a living - and I am a socialist? Well, I would just love to have the federal government provide the fundamental resources for me to do my business at a rate that is cheaper than I could obtain in the marketplace - BUT THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM, NOW WOULDN'T IT! I'm glad you come from a long line of ranchers. There are other ranchers who do not graze their stock on federal land - they pay market rates. Why don't you climb up in the saddle of those of us who do not rely on federal subsidies before you start crying socialism. Can anyone explain how the right to consume and degrade public resources to make a living is in any way consistent with conservative political philosophy? I thought not.
Like clinton's land grab in Utah to prevent the mining of low sulfur coal? That was to pay back his buddy's in the Lippo group wasn't it?
And the republicans have let that stand.
WarHawk42
Oh, come on. Okay, fine, we'll play out your string. If this is the way you say it should go - The Federal government BOUGHT the majority of the land, with taxpayer dollars, during the westward expansion of the nation. If the private individuals who want to rape it for their living should own it, let them BUY it. Just like many other individuals and corporations who graze and timber their own land BOUGHT it. Or do you propose that it be given away for free to those who happen to have taken advantage of federal largesse to use the land over all these years?
The federal government has exercised control (read: ownership) over frontier lands since the early days of the Republic. Do you really think there should be no public land? No national parks? No battlefield memorials? How about military bases? When does it end? Get rid of state parks? Public beaches? How about your friendly neighborhood park - should it be a for-profit venture?
"Spew this crap in Colorado and you will get far worse than flamed."
Oh, and by the way, this kind of crap is about as unpatriotic and un-American as I can imagine: "Say what you believe about a matter of public policy and we will hurt you." While you spend all your energy on the 2nd Amendment, maybe you should take a minute and look at the one that comes before it.
"But what the Demolibs don't realize is that I believe the Cuban-American community is going to show up in November with numbers not seen before. Their frustration and anger will be aimed at Bore and the entire Democrap Party. And rightfully so."
I think you're right, here, but I can't figure out why would such an obviously damaging act (to the socialists) be carried out?
Unless, it is the Martial Law thing that didn't happen at Y2K.
After what happended in Miami Saturday, The name "Republic of Texas" sounds awfully good to this Texan.
First I refer to "federal money" as taxpayer money.
You seem to be terribly upset over 1.2 billion dollars. I would really like to know, are as upset over........................
Bush increasing taxpayer money to schools?
Bush giving taxpayer money to churches?
That's just a couple of bush's ideas, both unconstitutional. Have you spoke out on them?
WarHawk42
take a look at www.dixienet.org & the League of the South.
Thanks for the link. I know my son has been reading about the Southern party. He has told me a little about it. Personally I think that may be the only way to kill the beast.
WarHawk42
But what about his main point, that those who graze cattle at below market costs on Federal land are receiving a government subsidy?
A valid concern. What do we, the people get out of the "free ride" the ranchers get? Those of us that lived here for 5 generations know what we built here.
Like roads the yuppies drive Nissan Xterras full of mountian bikes on. Most of the roads in the mountians were built by loggers and ranchers. Also Survival cabins all over the mountians and plains.
Breckenridge was built by miners. Now it is a high dollar ski town.
Do you Know how many yuppie Xterras and Blazers get pulled out of mud bogs by a ranchers tractor every year? Have you ever experienced a blizzard that drops 6 feet of snow on your 4X truck in one night, at 11,500 feet? After ski travel back out a ranch house looks like heaven. The free breakfast was awesome!
Fair enough?
The real problem with your rant, lugsoil, lies in the fact that the Federal government has no right under the Constitution to be holding that land. These "public lands" are not forts, magazines, naval shipyards, or anything mentioned in said document. Why does the Federal government even have posession of these lands, when Federal property is clearly defined in the Constitution and makes no mention at all of forests, or wilderness areas.
the infowarrior
I might be living in Arizonia sometime in the near future, if you get my drift!
I might be living in Arizona sometime in the near future, if you get my drift!
"Say what you believe about a matter of public policy and we will hurt you."
I said nothing about violent acts. Unless you consider face to face debate violent.
I cordially invite you to visit Colorado and take a ride to the top of the Continent. Imagine my ancestors pioneering this area.
Federal land belongs to you and me. Private property bought and paid for by Coloradans borders national forest. We have some of the last of the open range in the nation. Seeing a sign that means freedom for as far as the eye can see is a beautiful thing. Come and see it before you destroy it - for everybody.
BTW- I believe we were discussing Officer Jack B. Thug, not rednecks out west getting a free ride. And ranchers have guns. And we are so dang lazy we get real good at shooting them too.
If it's called tourist season, why cain't we shoot 'em?
Well, the Fed now "owns" 1/3 third of all U.S. lands now, or the equivalent of the size of Europe, isn't that enogh?
Rep. Bill Brotherton, a Democrat member of Johnson's committee, called efforts to promote the bill a "total waste of time."
Why? It only goes into effect if a horrible event happens. What is he afraid of? Is he going to lose his promised seat on the UN American Security Council?
"Obviously ... one of the more important issues we have is mental health in this state," Brotherton said mockingly. "I wonder if we are going to have a bill on the grassy knoll next to decide who shot Kennedy."
Right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Commie Rat.
Arizona secession? Republic of Texas? I live in New Mexico, can we play too?
Florida has no intention of seceding. Think about it. Half our population is of the "Greatest Generation." Of them more than half rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. Most Floridians are Democrats, a fact that will play out interestingly when the census is counted. The Republicans will have to use a lasar to draw districts that guarantee republicans election victories.
I agree that private 'business' use of federal land at cut rate prices is a form of welfare, BUT
(1) Cattle grazing on unused land is not hurting anyone and the privilege to do so should be auctioned to the highest bidder to prevent favoritism and establish a fair rate.
(2) I thought the original objection was the grab of private lands by the fed w/o just compensation, not the grab of fed lands by the fed. What kind of a land grab is the fed govt. committing by taking it's own land?
These "Federal" lands are within the confines of soverign States. Just when did the Federal government purchase these lands? The Constitution limits the Federal government to the 10 square miles the comprise DC and such other property for Forts, amories and shipyards. That's it Jack. No more and no less.
I believe the Commonwealth of Kentucky would like to sign up for secession also! We don't need no out-of-control steenkin' feds.
Lugsoul, I would realy be interested in your answer to my question in post #37.
I agree with you there shouldn't be any federal handouts, but there shouldn't be federal control over state lands for other than Constatutional puposes either.
WarHawk42
The Southern Party now has PAC's in every Southern State and border State. If you want more information about usCLICK HERE
Just when did the Federal government purchase these lands?
I believe that these lands were purchased in about 1804 in something called the Louisiana Purchase or in other cases c1844, after the Mexican War. (Exact dates were never my strong suit.)
Lee E., where did you get that wonderful name?(use the FR mailbox, if ya like)...FRegards
I might be living in Arizonia sometime in the near future, if you get my drift!
Not a bad idea, but I wouldn't get excited about this one passing the legislature, or the Liberal RINO governor signing it. I have spoken to Karen Johnson's office, they are not too hopeful about it being passed.
I am absolutely against taxpayer funding of churches. Does that answer your question?
The lands in question (see the article above - anyone remember that?) that were converted to NM status were already public lands. They were not, and were never, "state lands." The feds did not take them from the state, and did not take them from private landowners, unless you condsider taking them from the natives as falling in that category. If you do, we all better be giving back some land.
The Constitutional limitation some of you continue to mention refers to lands ceded by or purchased from States - plainly. What about land purchased from other countries? Secured by treaty with other countries? Taken by treaty, or otherwise, from native tribes? The Constitution contains no prohibition of federal ownership of such land. What is your suggestion - have the feds sell it all? At market rates? Give it away? Just let those people who have the beneficial use of it have it?
M1991 - I've been to the top of the continent - I've walked, snowshoed, ridden and skiied a goodly portion of it, and the San Luis Valley and surroundings is one of my favorite places on the planet. While ranchers like yourself often have a strong conservation ethic, the same is not true for many of the large corporate interests that benefit from the low-priced consumption of resources that belong to us all. Before I destroy it for us all? Pray tell, how would I be destroying it? I am working to preserve it, here in my own beloved Southern Appalachians, and I support such efforts, financially and otherwise, in other places.
I am absolutely against taxpayer funding of churches. Does that answer your question?
That answered one of my questions.:)
So according to you any land that has never been privately owned in any state is federal land? Clinton taking the use of the coal away from americans in Utah was legal?
I guess the federal government taking private land along the Mexican border to make a buffer zone is legal too? Then of course there is always that little emanate domain clause which pretty much allows the government to take land for any reason they desire doesn't it? That can and has been badly abused.
And then according to you the federal government is the only one who can manage land for the greater good?
WarHawk42
Strange read on my rant - I don't think I've indicated that I believe the federal government is doing an even halfway capable job of managing land for the greater good. Just the opposite.
My response regarding federal land is in reply to those who seem to think the federal government can't own land. Well, if you believe this, what do you propose be done with all the land being "illegally" held? How should it be parceled out? Do we all get a plot? Esoteric arguments based upon tenuous constitutional readings are fine - but what's the solution?
Utah? I presume you refer to mining rights under BLM land (Escalante)? How is that any different than timber rights on USFS land? That isn't private property - and, again, those rights were sold far cheaper than the market cost of mineral rights under non-BLM land. Do you support this? Do you think it is a good idea? And how can anyone distinguish this from any other kind of government handout?
Your other question (your questions presume I am a Bushie - far from it) - schools - I went to public school for all except kindergarten and post-graduate school - I don't have the same irrational fear of public schools some seem to have. The federal gov't's role seems questionable, but I have no problem with local or state public school funding.
All land not held privately? I didn't say that. But land purchased by the feds would seem to be federal land until otherwise disposed - same with land conquered by the feds. So, we buy 1/4 of the continent from France w/ taxpayer funds - who do you think is the "owner" upon completion of the transaction? Again - do we all get a plot?
...the Federal government has no right under the Constitution to be holding that land.
BINGO! The Federal government ‘owns' the vast majority of the land in some of the western States. Would the Constitution ever have been ratified, if the 13 original States had been required to turn over most of the land within their borders to the central government? The answer is (of course) NO...
In an effort to get this thread off of Elian and back into topic, I would like to remind people that there are states for whom statehood might not even legally exist.
These would include Alaska, which never got the plebescite vote required under international treaty prior to being made a state, and California, in which statehood was "accelerated" in order to allow the government to grab a piece of the action of all that gold discovered at Sutter's mill.
Ohio was declared a state ex post facto, declared to have been a state early enough so that it could vote on the ratification of the 16th amendment.
Texas became a state by congressional fiat.
Hawaii's statehood is likewise of dubious legality in that the United States has admited to and apologized for illegal actions in the orignal annexation, and the UN has recognized (but not acted on) "irregularities" in the Hawaiian statehood vote.
And when Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante monument, he violated a key provision of Utah's statehood agreement regarding the assignment in perpetuity of the coal reserves to the state's public school system.
Several states have banded together to form the "Western States Coalition", which argues for a multi-state secession over land rights.
The recent flap over the flying of the confederate flag is at least partly in response to another multi-state coalition, "The League Of The South", urging secession of the original confederacy for the same reason, as is the "Confederation of New England".
Secession would provide on immediate benefit to the states. It would end the hideous cash drain imposed by the bankrupt Federal Government. The Federal debt has doubled in the last 8 years, proving that the Federal government is a lost cause. It not only cannot get out of debt, it hasn't shown the least preference to do so as opposed to continuing to burden the American people with the interest payments. Eection year rhetoric to the contray, the federal government does NOT send back to the states more than it collects in taxes; it can't. What it sends is a portion of the Federal debt by withholding more and more funds each fiscal year to the point where the states are forced to borrow to make up the shortfall. This transfers the federal debt to the states, in order to conceal the true scale of the federal government's fiscal recklessness.
We are rapidly reaching the point where secession is not only the best option for the continuing well being of the states, but the ONLY option.
Strange read on my rant
At least you admit to ranting.:)
My response regarding federal land is in reply to those who seem
to think the federal government can't
own land. Well, if you believe this, what do you propose be done
with all the land being "illegally" held?
It's inside state borders, it should be state land to dispose of.
That isn't private property - and, again, those rights were sold far cheaper than the market cost of mineral rights under non-BLM land. Do you support this?
No I don't support that, but one thing I support less is clinton shutting it down to benefit his commie friends. Now who would you rather made a profit, the miners in Utah or the Lippo group?
The federal gov't's role seems questionable, but I have no problem with local or state public school funding.
The question was about bush's plan to expand the federal role in education. You have heard that I assume, he has made it a center piece of his campaign.
So, we buy 1/4 of the continent from France w/ taxpayer funds
Why would we ever want to do that, we would have to support them. Since when have we bought foreign lands? I don't recall buying Alaska or Hawaii.
WarHawk42
Most of the reason that the Federal government loses money running natural resource programs is because of paperwork requirements by the enviros that serve no useful public purpose. FreeRepublic really ought to add a topic category on environmentalism where some of these issues can get aired better. Clinton has declared War on the West, but it seems that even Freepers don't really know how bad things are getting out here.
May have to move back to Arizona someday after all......
Here you go.
Like the desert?
In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977).
The federal government has no Jurisdiction or authority over any land, property, or Citizen in Arizona.
How is it that our politicians and ranchers cannot research the Law and discover these simple facts?
Are they purposefully ignoring the Law?
yBUMP
I Love the desert! And the people who live there ain't bad either!
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |