Friday, October 31, 2014
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Suisun City man says to give John Wilkes Booth a holiday

By
From page A3 | February 14, 2014 |

FAIRFIELD — The day honoring Abraham Lincoln nears and a John Wilkes Booth holiday is needed, a Suisun City man told Fairfield-Suisun School District trustees Thursday.

He knew how to deal with tyrants, George Guynn Jr. said of Booth, an actor who assassinated President Lincoln at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 1865.

Guynn, 70, who is active in a local taxpayers organization, said later he was speaking personally when he talked during the public comment portion of the school board meeting.

Trustees should read the book “Lincoln Unmasked,” advised Guynn, who said the school district could refuse to honor the president’s holiday. “Lincoln Unmasked,” by a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland who is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, was published in 2006.

The public comment portion of school board meetings is for matters not on the agenda and trustees typically do not comment on statements.

The Suisun City resident, a retired real estate broker, told the Daily Republic after his statement that Lincoln supported a monolithic federal government and opposed states’ rights. Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War that led to the deaths of more than 600,000 people, Guynn said.

“Lincoln is probably the worst example of a president we ever had,” he said. Lincoln did not do good things, Guynn said. “Being a good Nazi is not a good thing.”

Guynn said he spoke about a holiday for Booth because school district trustees usually ignore his comments about such matters as taxes and academic programs.

“I want to get their attention,” Guynn said. “That’s the only way I can.”

“If somebody would show up and disagree with me,” he said, “that would be fine.”

Guynn spoke about attending college, getting a degree in mathematics from California State University, San Jose, and learning the things he’d been taught as a child about American presidents were fairy tales.

Reach Ryan McCarthy at 427-6935 or rmccarthy@dailyrepublic.net.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 102 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 5:51 am

    George, Wow, enough tea already. Put the pot down and give it a rest. We exist as a nation today because of this man's courage to step beyond the bounds for a while. Pick your favorite founding father and ask him what he would have done to save our nation. I know you think you have that ability. What would your country look like today if Lincoln had been meek?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:11 am

    Mike, are you serious? Should we praise "W" Bush and Obama for having the "courage to step beyond the bounds" when that is a euphemism for violating the Constitution? The Constitution is supposed to be our paramount law. You're saying that when the very highest law-enforcement authority in the country violates the very highest law in the country, that we are supposed to praise them for doing so? (Oh Mike, Lincoln was a Republican... I'm a little shocked you would stick up for a Republican.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 9:20 am

    Again, im not reporting a bad comment. Just using my phone with fat dingers. TM and GG, im sure you and your repub brothers would not take Lincoln in as a repub today. I doubt if Lincoln would care to join those ranks. Im glad you two belong to the same book club, but dont assume everything you read is true. The problem with comparing Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions with g.w.bush's is that Kincoln was fighting to preserve the Union, while bush was simply trying to make his handlers happy. He had no justification for his actions. Would you agree?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 6:24 am

    Wow George, when I saw the caption I was positive this was Rich's idea. If you haven't had enough bad press lately congratulations, this should pad your numbers!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:13 am

    Probably true, Seedy. The press are a bunch of lazy folks who just reflect popular propaganda and don't do a whole lot of factual research. (Present company excluded, DR.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:24 am

    OH! I'm sorry The Mister. I was speaking to the more clear thinking individuals that usually respond here.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rich GiddensFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:05 am

    Lincoln was indeed a tyrant and got what he deserved. And I'm beginning to admire General Benedict Arnold and Edward Snowden too! Sic Semper Tyrannus!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:07 am

    George, I'm reading that book! You are so right on this. Lincoln's objective was to further the Hamiltonian cause to destroy any vestige of the Constitution that held protections for the individual states and the people... and he accomplished it with a great loss of American lives. And don't think that Lincoln was all about ending slavery... he wasn't. Today we would call him a racist of the highest order! Fact: Up to three days before he was shot, Lincoln was working a deal to deport all Blacks out the country. And if you lived in the north and said anything bad about Lincoln, you would be imprisoned. It is a documented fact that Lincoln's thugs waterboarded some of those northerners who were imprisoned for just speaking out against Lincoln. There's your historical icon... a racist, terrorist, war-mongering Adam Henry. Thanks, Mr Booth. (Did you know that, before becoming president, Lincoln was a crooked Chicago lawyer... just like you-know-who?)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mayor SanchezFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:39 am

    To get attention, some run for election .Others prefer to rewrite history.LOL.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:01 am

    Sometimes to get attention, they take over control of their country by force leaving many killed to rot in the fields.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TVPFebruary 14, 2014 - 8:26 am

    You seem to forget that political ideologies change over time, and what a Lincoln Republican believed in then differs from what a modern Republican believes in now. Look at Teddy Roosevelt and try to label him a Republican: broadening the use of Executive power; cracking down on political corruption; curbing the power of large corporations; breaking up monopolies; getting workers more pay and fewer hours worked; preserving the environment; bringing about immigration reform; etc. How many Republicans these days believe in bringing big business under stronger regulation? I'm not trying to argue, just making a point that the Republican party then and the Republican party now are two completely different things.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 14, 2014 - 8:49 am

    Comrade Kirchubel, so you are supporting a Republican Tyrant, Lincoln, now. Who would have ever thought that would happen?!!!! CD, you really need to read Lincoln Unmasked. I think even you will be shocked at how bad Lincoln really was as a president and a person. He even issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, after the 84 year old jurist issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can legally suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Fortunately, no federal marshal would serve the warrant. The Mister, you will find Lincoln Unmasked very interesting reading! Mayor Sanchez, so, now we know you ran for office for the attention. I always thought it was for the junkets and other freebees. You really need to read Lincoln Unmasked before you comment on things that you are totally clueless.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 9:28 am

    GGJ, what good would it do to read that book? I really could care less and it will affect my life not at all.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • SeedyFebruary 14, 2014 - 9:59 am

    Yeah... I don't need to know facts. My opinions are all that I need. And you'd better agree with me!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Tom AtoFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:07 am

    What a juicy discussion!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • LilFebruary 14, 2014 - 12:07 pm

    You should read "Lincoln and the Court" by Brian McGinty for another perspective.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mayor SanchezFebruary 14, 2014 - 12:51 pm

    Read the article George. It quotes you trying to"get attention" . You ran for office before and lost. Not much "attention" obtained that way , so revising history is the new trick? Sure attention getter .LOL

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Danny BuntinFebruary 14, 2014 - 9:24 am

    I just read "Danny The Dinosaur". So, where should I start on comparing the Dinosaur of today, with the reckless tyrant of the past? After the first chapter, you will be shocked.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 12:37 pm

    Hey Danny, we did see Lincoln the Vampire slayer. Probably not what these folks were after?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • HKFebruary 14, 2014 - 4:58 pm

    Lol! Those dinosaurs deserved to die. I have an actual history degree, but if I'm not wasting my time reading a nutjob's vendetta against Lincoln, I'm uninformed? Fantastic.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 16, 2014 - 12:55 pm

    So History is honest when the research done is from authors rather than going to original documents. Even then it will be somewhat biased. 80 years ago history written then 20% untrue....today 80% untrue. So read back to the original will benefit you & me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • HKFebruary 16, 2014 - 4:32 pm

    All real history uses primary sources. The problem here is Mr Guynn has confused the amount of footnotes with credibility (lets call it the Coulter effect) because this one book reinforces his world view.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 16, 2014 - 5:38 pm

    All History based on what..oh please...no more cool aid.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:14 am

    CD, If you aren't bothered about Lincoln taking out an arrest warrant against Suprreme Court Chief Chief Justice Taney or sending off to the Fort Lafayette gulag anyone that didn't publicly support his policies, in other words just remaining silent, you are hopeless. You had better hope that today's Lincoln, Obama, doesn't come for you. Being silent sure didn't work for the Japanese Americans during World War II.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:51 am

    GGJ, you comment is idi*tic and not worth responding to.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:57 am

    George wins this debate!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 14, 2014 - 11:17 am

    The Mister, you objective judging is appreciated! But not in America...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 11:18 am

    ... said the impartial arbiter. I think what is happening is that people have said their piece and nobody's shifting gears. Am i safe in assuming you two, if president, would have let the nation collapse rather than feel it was your duty to preserve it? If so, you would have preserved your Constitution so it could be displayed in the capitals of Europe on permanent traveling display.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 14, 2014 - 1:08 pm

    Mike, you are safe in assuming that I would not have taken a continent of individual, sovereign states and forced them under an imperialistic, centralized National government... and I wouldn't have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process. What would America have looked like then? Probably similar to pre-EU Europe with the difference being that each individual State government would be a representative republic. The requirements of the Constitution would have been met. We're not using the Constitution now, Mike, maybe we should see if countries in Europe would like to check it out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 2:39 pm

    Again, im not reporting anything. Its just the tight layout. TM, lets go. Sounds like a good time. If we were Congressmen, we could charge it to the taxpayers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://www.privateislandsonline.com/areas/greeceFebruary 14, 2014 - 3:00 pm

    Google......Islands for Sale in Greece, Europe - Private Islands Online .......For You Michael only a GEEK Island will suffice.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://www.ricksteves.com/tours/eastern-europe/adriaticFebruary 14, 2014 - 3:09 pm

    Personally I have been checking out....Hot Croatian Fishermen dot com ! A Poor man's Italy?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 15, 2014 - 8:16 am

    Yeah...we tried something like that under the Articles of Confederation, and it didn't work that well because the central government had as much authority as the EU does over its member states. That is why the Founders abandoned and replaced it with Constitution in 1789, which created a stronger federal government and essentially prevented the country from going back to a confederacy. Which is why your assertion that you could've avoided the Civil War and created an EU-like nation is ridiculous.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 15, 2014 - 9:10 am

    @ Puddin Taint. I said that we wouldn't have had the civil war and we would NOT create an EU-like nation. We would have continued with individual state-nations with a representative republic form of government. Puddie, I get from you that you would prefer a strong, central dictatorial power over the lives of all the subjects. You must be pretty thrilled with the direction of our country.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 12:24 am

    TM: Because it didn't happen that way, you can write whatever fictional alternative history you want. But the rosy picture you paint would not have happened. The states would have been warring with each other and European intervention could not have been far behind. Who knows what would have happened to westward expansion. I like the way the USA turned out as it is. Lincoln was an amazing figure in our history.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 15, 2014 - 9:42 am

    My wife & I interviewed an official to see if the was merit for him to take office locally. He made a statement that in my mind disqualified him."We must protect the system".

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 14, 2014 - 6:43 pm

    CD, if you were sent off to a camp like the Japanese Americans during World War II you might think differently. It could happen again to another group. You just think it is not going to be you, but who knows? Mayor Sanchez, there goes your poor English again. I was referring to getting the FSUSD Booard to listen to the public, not getting attention for myself. Sp. you only want attention and could care less about the public? Read my comments again! The Mister, thanks for the great comments and setting CD straight! Komrade Kirchubel, if you had been one of the 620K to 700K that died under Lincoln, you might not hold the same view. Remember, back then medical care was next to nothing and when shot or injured one was up the creek. Also, the percentage of people killed to the total population was much higher too as the total population was much smaller then. Many families had family members killed. I agree with The Mister that we would be better off as a bunch of individual sovereign states with a representative republic form of government. All the people that died during the Civil War shouldn't have died. Lincoln started an unnecessary war because he was a control freak with mental problems. Everyone should read Lincoln Unmasked.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • boomFebruary 14, 2014 - 7:28 pm

    Then this guy is trying to push the book that suits his ideology on us and calls Lincoln a control freak. You should read more books on the subject as another commenter suggested. Beware of a man of one book. English Proverb

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895February 14, 2014 - 10:06 pm

    boom: My thought exactly.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:14 pm

    Hey! I have one book. Beware of me!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BAREASSMEAGAINFebruary 14, 2014 - 8:03 pm

    GEORGE GUYNN IS GETTING TO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH !!!! Do Something !!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithFebruary 14, 2014 - 8:28 pm

    In general, George wouldn't know the truth if it snuck up and bit him on the bottom! Sorry, George, but reading one book on Lincoln does not make you an expert.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mayor SanchezFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:12 pm

    Poor George. He truly believes he represents the public.LOL

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:15 pm

    Pete Sanchez is not Pol Pot....we need to give him a break. 18 years faithful service to whom...not a clue. But he does read Pier Reviews NOT. When there is NO ONE for Fluoride yet he alone wants it,of against the will EVER one else. Then one would not be error to conclude there might just be a smigin of Pol Pot in his actions against the Community of Suisun?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895February 14, 2014 - 10:24 pm

    George: You've really stepped in it now. Just because much of our watered down American history taught in high schools is "fairy tales," doesn't mean the opposite is true. We just find it too difficult to get challenging texts approved. Why are you so prone to buy the thesis of this one book? Who recommended this book to you? Lincoln did not start the Civil War. It actually started before he was even inaugurated with state seizures of federal property, which President Buchannan did nothing to stop. The war was about whether the Union was a binding compact among the states, but the reason that was such an important question was slavery. Slave states (most, but not all) could not tolerate the growing political power of the non-slave states and the threat that placed on their "peculiar institution." Lincoln's election was the last straw for South Carolina and a handful of other states, and others joined as events unfolded. By the end of the war, it was much more connected to the end of slavery and integration, which guys like Booth couldn't tolerate. You have to remember that integration was tyranny to many in those days; hence thespian Booth pictured himself as Brutus to Lincoln's Caesar. Booth wasn't totally nuts, but he was close to it. He lived in a fantasy world. Don't follow in his footsteps. And The Mister: You're backing George on this!?! Anyone else want to flush his credibility down the toilet?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 14, 2014 - 10:41 pm

    Flush.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 15, 2014 - 7:59 am

    The Mister has credibility to flush? News to me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 15, 2014 - 9:14 am

    Wow... truth, reason and research are obviously not welcomed here.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksFebruary 15, 2014 - 2:30 pm

    The Mister, yes I've said that once or twice here myself. Difference is, mine really was truth through research! ;)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxId5ZftchsFebruary 15, 2014 - 1:58 pm

    @ Milk Dud-in (the) SlowLane.....( I sweetened it up in honor of Valentines Day )....you make about as much sense as this......Hope you enjoy some more nonsense !

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895February 17, 2014 - 6:28 am

    Speak for yourself, StR, or go away.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • A Different PerspectiveFebruary 15, 2014 - 12:02 pm

    I could care less what Guynn thinks about Lincoln, or anything else for that matter, but approving of the assassination of an elected official is repugnant.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 15, 2014 - 12:43 pm

    The Mister, you are sure correct about truth, research, and reason not being welcome with some of the comments here! To my nay Sayers, you obviously could care less about the facts. The appendix and the notes at the back of Lincoln Unmasked gives many other sources. In the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams is one good source. Another is Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., who harshly criticized Lincoln in his book, "FORCED INTO GLORY: ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S WHITE DREAM, because of Lincoln's lifelong advocacy of "colonization." He recommended deporting black people to some other country--Africa, Haiti, Central America--anywhere outside the United States. The naysayers are either Lincoln Cultist, meaning that they ignore the facts and blindly worship Lincoln, are lazy, or just plan stupid and could care less when it comes to facts. Naysayers, how do you defend Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio, home in the middle of the night by sixty-seven armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a kangaroo court military tribunal and deported? Mayor Sanchez, some of your constituents refer to you as Pol Pot Pete after the Cambodian Dictator. Why is that? Could it be that you are out of step with representative republican government?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 17, 2014 - 6:35 am

    George: Speaking of facts, when was it that Lincoln advocated "colonization?"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 15, 2014 - 12:58 pm

    A Different Perspective, let me get this straight, it is not okay to kill a public official, but it is fine to murder 620,000 to 700,000 people in a civil war? According to you, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini should have been left alone? Is that correct? Hope you never ever get a political position, if that is your thinking!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • A Different PerspectiveFebruary 15, 2014 - 1:21 pm

    Booth took the law into his own hands in violation of our laws. He was a murderer. What Lincoln may or may have not done is beside the point. Next you will probably say it's okay to do a Tonya Harding number on Mayor Sanchez' kneecaps because he wants to add flouride to your water?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 17, 2014 - 6:53 am

    George: You beg the question. Lincoln didn't murder anybody, as far as we know.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Just looking!February 16, 2014 - 2:12 am

    Much like Stalin painted people out of Russian History, American history gets repainted. It might be forgotten that Lincoln presented an Amendment to the US Constitution to make slavery permanent (That would be inconvenient to Lincoln's reputation wouldn't it?). Here is the verbiage: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 17, 2014 - 6:45 am

    JL: Same question for you: When did Lincoln do that? As CD says, "context is king!" Or does that create an inconient truth for you? What do you have against Lincoln anyway. Certainly it can't be because Lincoln was pro-slavery, because he wasn't. Is it because you're still fighting the Civil War for the losing side?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 16, 2014 - 10:46 am

    A Different Prospective, you really do have a different way of looking at things. According to you, since Stalin was a leader, he could murder 20 million people, but because he was a leader, it is okay. I don't think so and most logical people won't either! You may say that what Lincoln did or did not do is besides the point, but would you say that if Lincoln was after you? With your views, let's hope you never get any power or become a leader! Just looking!, your comment on Lincoln's Amendment to the Constitution comes from page 24 of Lincoln Unmasked. According to the book,The U. S. House of Representatives passed the amendment on February 28, 1861. And by the way, "Domestic institutions" mentioned in the amendment, meant slavery. "Two days later, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised several times that he had no intention to interfere with Southern slavery, and that even if he did, it would be unconstitutional to do so." The previous sentence in quotes is from Lincoln Unmasked, page 24. Just looking!, thanks so much for your comment. It is nice to know that everyone doesn't live in fantasy land or believe all of the garbage that comes from the government and the public school system!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • A Different PerspectiveFebruary 16, 2014 - 12:01 pm

    Booth committing cold blooded, premeditated murder is the only issue I'm speaking to. The events leading up to his decision to assassinate Lincoln are immaterial. Your assumptions of what I stated are totally off the mark.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:32 pm

    ADP, isn't the bigger question this: Who is this man, Lincoln, that we are celebrating? The facts are that he is a treasonous racist who exercised dictatorial power to violate the Constitution and prosecute war against some of the united States that resulted in 3/4 of a million dead Americans. Yippee!! Let's celebrate!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • A Different PerspectiveFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:40 pm

    TM, it might be a bigger question and you can debate that all you want. I really don't have the desire to spend the time trying to sort out the fact from fiction, Again, my point is, regardless of the reason, Guynn's condoning Booth's assassination of Lincoln is indefensible and as the editorial stated, obscene. More lawlessness isn't the appropriate answer to lawlessness, perceived or real.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • HKFebruary 16, 2014 - 4:35 pm

    Agreed, ADP. If you guys think the assassination of a president is commendable, well, I hope your Secret Service frisking is gentle.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:19 pm

    A Different Perspective, just think, if Lincoln had got one of your relatives killed in the Civil War, you might not even be here! Since he didn't, you are still a slave to any tyrant, based on your comments. Fortunately, many Americans don't like or accept tyrants or kiss their feet. Too bad you are not one of them.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • A Different PerspectiveFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:24 pm

    Still not the point.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 17, 2014 - 7:06 am

    And still begging the question. George: Where do you get Lincoln as a tyrant? Presidents are allowed extraordinary powers in wartime. Even more so during an insurrection. Do you deny that?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 16, 2014 - 1:49 pm

    Its not difficult hold both views Lincoln was not right & neither was Booth

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://illuminati-news.com/mary-todd-killed-lincoln.htmFebruary 16, 2014 - 7:43 pm

    In general Google...Mary Todd Lincoln Illuminati...See...Illuminati News: Mary Todd Killed Lincoln ...... In General remember The Hidden Hand sets up both sides to fight each other....This was true of the United States Civil War also.....? But sometimes the Presidential Puppets get tired or guilty or maybe even God Intervenes? and the Puppets do not strickly follow the plans of the Illuminati Masters?....Anyway Presented for your Consideration.....Moral of the Story the Entire World needs to find a way to break away from the Rothschild Banking Powers.....1. The main problem being how to compensate the oil producing countries fairly and to fairly distribute the available oil fairly worldwide......2. The Military/Industrial/Intelligence complex is Brainwashed/Monetarily Bribed/Seduced ( in all countries by the Banking/Corporation interests) by the thought of oil conquest for our/their country?/keeping the Petro dollar for our country, making any protest against the Banking powers dangerous for normal citizens of any country...3. The top Government/Military officials of every country are controlled by the Banking Interests, even when two countries are set up to fight each other....say China/Vietnam vs the United States, or all the Countries in the World Wars....the top Government officials on both sides do not really care that their citizens/soldiers are sacrificed for the overall benefit of the elite in each country....the Private Banking Interests....Moral of the Story.....READ REVELATION IN THE BIBLE...The Illuminati have been striving for a long time to prepare for the arrival of the anti-christ.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • So the Important Point is that.....February 16, 2014 - 7:55 pm

    The same Illuminati hidden hand type Conspiracy Plot that ended up in the death of Lincoln is the same type of multiple plot that took out Kennedy....the CIA, FBI, Johnson and oil/gambling buddies, Conspirators in the Secret Service, Dallas Police Dept...George Bush, Nixon, Ford....as in the Lincoln case MULTIPLE Conspirators all backed by the Hidden Hand of the Banking Powers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/04/02/the-presidents-who-killed-rothschild-banking-schemes-andrew-roosevelt-and-the-presidents-murdered-by-rothschild-lincoln-kennedy/February 16, 2014 - 8:18 pm

    The Presidents Who Killed Rothschild Banking Schemes : Jackson & Roosevelt And The Presidents Murdered By Rothschild ~ Lincoln, Garfield, & Kennedy! April 2, 2011 by Volubrjotr politicalvelcraft..........WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion dollars. But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia’s largest oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country’s debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia’s capacity to restore financial sovereignty.By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia’s debt to the Rothschilds. Russia’s financial dependence on the Teutonic Zionist financiers was now over. Putin could then establish what became his Russian Unity Party’s campaign slogan: “Putin’s Plan Means Victory For Russia!” This slogan continues to make the New World Order Teutonic Zionists very nervous…and remember 9/11 was an inside job and aspects of the Mossad executed the operational aspects...remote control of the aircraft and the demolitions plants in the Towers?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921108001219February 16, 2014 - 8:32 pm

    Interesting piece......Tue Jan 28, 2014 Rothschild’s Saudi Lapdog Armed Syrian and Libyan Rebels............The Rothschilds are majority owners of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Saudi central bank, Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA). In 1917 the British made a client of Ibn Saud, who was told to encourage Arab tribesman to repel the Ottoman Turks from the Persian Gulf Region. That same year the British House of Rothschild pushed through the Balfour Declaration, lending Crown support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. A year later the Ottomans were defeated. Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were carved out of the Ottoman Empire and fell under British rule, with Ibn Saud taking control of his namesake, Saudi Arabia. In 1922 the Treaty of Jeddah gave Saudi Arabia independence from Britain, though the Crown still exerted considerable influence. To this day British mercenaries serve as bodyguards for the House of Saud........The important question is ..... What would happen if we truly had free market trade worldwide and not the Rothschild controlled Corporate/Bank structure....Maybe we in American would not have quite so much stuff, but we would all still have jobs and would not be killing people in other countries for oil on behalf of the Banking powers...much of the oil goes to Europe, China and places other than the United States.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • http://www.pseudoreality.org/committeeof300.htmlFebruary 16, 2014 - 8:39 pm

    Google......Committee of 300 Member List | Guelph Black Nobility | Illuminati .....look at the 21 goals of the Illuminati

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 17, 2014 - 8:49 am

    A Different Perspective, German Officers who attempted to kill Hitler (Operation Valkrie in July. 1944) were guilty of attempted murder and Hitler was justified in having them executed, according to you. The people that rebelled against King George took the law into their own hands. We would still be slaves to England, otherwise. When government doesn't follow the law, people have to raise up or be salves. Obviously, you like being a salve and are a Lincoln idolizer! Rick Wood, Lincoln did NOT have the right to suspend habeas corpus and make an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney (84 years old). Lincoln did not uphold his oath of office in following the Constitution and should have been tried for being a traitor and hung! We sure don't need a Lincoln holiday!!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 17, 2014 - 8:59 am

    So George, using your logic of comparing Booth to Operation Valkerie, does that make Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter? Maybe he should get his own day too, you should bring that up at the next meeting!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 17, 2014 - 9:29 am

    George, as the foundation and walls of your argument crumble, you seem to be left with one reason Lincoln should be hung: he arrested a Supreme Court Justice. Pretty flimsy. Now the question is: Do understand why he was arrested?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 12:32 am

    Mike: Interesting question. This is the first I've heard of Lincoln issuing an arrest warrant for Taney. I'd like to learn more from a reliable source. I'll look it up.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 12:43 am

    Wikipedia doesn't think much of it. The short and undeniably factual answer is there was no such warrant. And the evidence such a warrant was considered is flimsy. But apparently not flimsy enough to deter some authors and gullible readers from believing marshals were riding Taney down.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulFebruary 17, 2014 - 11:16 am

    I am English so may look at things a little differently. I don't believe Americans rebelled against the British. The British broke covenant with the Americans.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rich GiddensFebruary 17, 2014 - 2:30 pm

    publish my comments if you please, mr. editor and stop treating me subjectively by printing defamatory and untrue stories that only side with government. After all, I am not John Wilkes Booth.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 18, 2014 - 10:38 am

    Rick Wood, FYI, someone I know made the following comment about your posts: Self-righteous Rick Wood needs to be told to stop demanding that people do research for him because he is too lazy to look up something he considers too outrageous to be true of Lincoln; such as his well-established support for the Corwin Amendment. He says "context is king", well how about he reads Lincoln's 1st inaugural address (Mar 4, 1861) in which he clearly states that he will support ratification of the amendment which had already been passed by congress to make permanent the institution of slavery, if......the seceding states would pleeeeeeease just come back into the union and pay the Morill Tariff. The grossly unfair Tariff, and not slavery, was the real reason why the southern states seceded! And Lincoln knew it! That is why you will never see his 1st inaugural address reprinted in school textbooks! BTW, Lincoln claimed that he never recognized the legitimacy of the secession, but his 1st inaugural proves otherwise. He knew it was legit! They had done nothing unlawful. Rick's statement that "presidents are allowed extraordinary powers during wartime" reveals just how ignorant he is. First of all, there was no war. there was never a declaration of war given to Lincoln. Lincoln committed genocide; war on his own people! Presidents today do the same thing; they simply wage war on our freedom and people's lives in other countries that have done nothing to us! And a worthless, spinless congress pays the bill with our money! And knowledge challenged people like Rick are OK with that! Message to Rick: do some homework! You just might learn something! Sic Semper Tyrannis! BTW, John Wilkes Booth's b-day is May 10! Komrade Kerchubel, the attempted arrest of the Supreme Court Chief Justice was one of the least of Lincoln's crimes. Lincoln should have been tried and hung as a traitor for not following his oath to support the Constitution and suspending the Writ of Habeus Corpus. You should try doing some research for a change!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 1:12 pm

    There was no war? George, do any of your history books tell you which side fired the first shot?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 1:20 pm

    What about: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Oh, wait, I forgot, you said the Civil War wasn't a war. Tell your tale to the dead. What else you got?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 1:34 pm

    Here's something to think about: "President Bush made several attempts with varying degrees of success to revoke the right of habeas corpus. As well as the obvious example of denying habeas corpus proceedings to those detained at Guantanamo Bay, the president attempted, more surreptitiously, to grant himself the power to be able to revoke this basic right for every American citizen." "President Bush went further when, on May 9, 2007, he issued a “presidential directive” that allows him to assume control of the federal government following a “catastrophic emergency.” Although the directive doesn’t specifically identify the types of emergencies that would qualify as “catastrophic,” the language is so broad that it could include almost anything that might have a major impact on the country. This directive would in effect make any president the final authority in such an emergency, as it states clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches of government that will be coordinated by the president. Each branch of government—the Executive, Legislative and Judicial—is supposed to be equal in power. Yet if the president is coordinating these efforts, it essentially puts him in charge of every branch of the government." Shouldn't you be more concerned about G.W.Bush than Abe Lincoln? You ask us to learn our history, where are your howls of protest and cheap talk of hanging now?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 1:27 am

    Good one, Mike. To see this discussion of Lincoln when we just experienced the likes of GWB makes one gag. Lincoln actually believed in the Constitution.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 1:39 pm

    By the way, not that it matters to you, Congress passed the suspension of Habeas Corpus Act, legally granting Lincoln his power. Better hang them too.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 1:51 pm

    I guess they didn't read your "history" book and mistakenly thought there was a war going on. Silly them. So, anything? Are you still there? I'll take my answer on the air. I can't wait for you to rip my posts apart with your version of facts and data. I'm atwitter, downright giddy, in fact, with anticipation.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 2:47 pm

    Twitterness, now wearing off. Feeling alone, less gid, perhaps a bit of abandonment by my counterparts on the other side. Have they given up on hanging Lincoln? Are they now reading real history books, turning pages with great fervor and fury? We may never know. Well, it was fun while it lasted, opponents on the ropes, gasping, swinging at air, fanning and cooling my sweaty brow with desperation. But not a gloater, I. Much too hip and humble.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 1:20 am

    And Lincoln's suspension of the writ was extremely limited, having to do with Washington being located in a slave state, Maryland. Lincoln wanted to be sure military operations were not disrupted by southern sympathizers in and around Washington.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterFebruary 18, 2014 - 2:30 pm

    Fantastic, George! Just fantastic. You hit them with facts and all they can do is mumble about. The facts prove that Lincoln was a treasonous dictator and the propaganda says he was as righteous as Jesus. I'll live in a world of facts... thank you very much.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 2:50 pm

    I didn't mumble, TM. Care to do a little reading? Look up. You are lagging behind a bit.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 18, 2014 - 4:50 pm

    Mike, TM doesn't take in anything longer than a sound bite, as he dismissed my explanation of how the water proposal by Boehner and the House Republicans benefited San Joaquin Valley farmers at the expense of NorCal and Delta farmers as "too long". Oh hey, there I go again, using those gosh darn multisyllabic words!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 18, 2014 - 4:37 pm

    "I'll live in a world of facts, thank you very much." The Mister, that may be the most hilarious thing you've ever written, and you're an "Agenda 21" believer! Now I have to clean up the coffee from my spit-take.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Puddin TaneFebruary 18, 2014 - 4:33 pm

    "Genocide," Mr. Guynn. You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mike KirchubelFebruary 18, 2014 - 4:55 pm

    George, Lincoln never said anything like that in his speech. It's posted on the web in many places. Also, the Morrill Tariff was voted on AFTER the South left the Union, that's the only reason it passed, and it was passed to help pay for the war that you think never happened. Boy, you are striking out all the way around.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrFebruary 20, 2014 - 10:34 am

    Komrade Kerchubal, you need to do some research and stop writing untruths. Fort Sumter was sized on April 12, 1861, but the Morrill Tariff was signed into law on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration. You need to get your dates straight!!!! Therefore, your statement about the Morill Tariff was just to finance the war that wasn't even legal is not true too. tell komrade kirchubel to pay attention! I didn't say there was no war, Also, I said there was NO DECLARATION OF WAR given Lincoln by congress as required by the constitution. therefore, he like all presidents today who engage the military without a declaration, was in violation of his oath. He had no authority to wage war and congress has no authority to abdicate it's sole responsibility to declare war. Congress had no authority to pass the suspension of habeus corpus act BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REBELLION! The Southern states had left the union peacefully and they had no interest in taking over the federal gov't. Lincoln was invading a sovereign foreign state when he insisted on resupplying Fort Sumpter. He had been warned that any such attempt would be stopped with any force deemed necessary. Yes, the South fired the first shot as they had every right to repel an invader. But it was their biggest strategic blunder. If they had just kept cool Lincoln would have had to back down. The coward knew he had no justification to fire first. If his stand was so righteous as all the Lincoln idolizers say, then why didn't he fire the first shot? Because public opinion in the north was overwhelmingly opposed to going to war over this issue! anyone who is not afraid of the truth can read first hand newspaper accounts of the opposition. Of course Lincoln's solution was to simply shut down all those newspapers and jail the editors! Komrade Kirchubel would of course have no problem with this.....it was to save the union! A forced union, like any forced association is tyranny!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 12:12 am

    Mike said after states left the union, not after the war began. Here is the order of secession: South Carolina, December 20, 1860; Mississippi, January 9, 1861; Florida, January 10, 1861; Alabama, January 11, 1861; Georgia, January 19, 1861; Louisiana, January 26, 1861; Texas, February 1, 1861; Virginia, April 17, 1861; Arkansas, May 6, 1861; North Carolina, May 20, 1861; Tennessee, June 8, 1861.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 12:17 am

    As for doing research, I ask questions to see if you've done yours. I know the answers I would give.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 1:09 am

    I actually don't take much issue with your analysis, George. You present a fair argument for the Southern cause. From a Northern perspective, there was no declaration of war because the Union did not recognize the CSA as a separate country. You don't have to be violent or want to take over to be considered rebellious. Certainly the southern states seized federal property without consideration. Generally resistance was futile. Perhaps there were incidents of violence; I'm not going to bother to look it up. But certainly we know what happened when the federals resisted at Ft. Sumter. Perhaps Lincoln provoked the incident, but it's hard to see how he could do much else and stay true to his promise to preserve the Union. He offered an olive branch, but for naught. It is well documented that Lincoln considered slavery both legal and immoral. A quandary. He was satisfied with containing it, not ending it. He got into politics as a Whig, and like many Whigs, supported purchasing slaves, freeing them, and sending them out of the country. Few white Americans then, even Lincoln, could visualize a huge freed slave class integrating white culture. Colonization was a completely infeasible idea, but consistent with Lincoln's views about the legality of slavery. The Civil War ended any such naïve (and hugely expensive) ideas. By the end of the war, Lincoln had no trouble simply advocating an amendment to the Constitution to end slavery without any form of compensation. Morality trumped reconciliation. The south earned their lumps, and go them. But after that big hit, it was clear also that Lincoln was going to pour national resources into rebuilding the south and reuniting the country. But then your hero JWB got lucky one night in April 1895.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodFebruary 23, 2014 - 1:13 am

    I don't know anything about the tariff, but if it was signed two days before Lincoln's inauguration, then it wasn't his signature.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

Solano News

 
Real estate agent pens, produces movie

By Amy Maginnis-Honey | From Page: B1, 2 Comments

 
Neighborhood candy hunts of the past

By Tony Wade | From Page: A2

 
Candy from sky highlights North Texas Street event

By Ryan McCarthy | From Page: A3 | Gallery

 
Vintage Fair on tap at McBride Senior Center

By Amy Maginnis-Honey | From Page: A3

 
Fairfield police log: Oct. 29, 2014

By Susan Hiland | From Page: A12

Suisun City police log: Oct. 29, 2014

By Susan Hiland | From Page: A12, 1 Comment

 
.

US / World

Judge approves Stockton’s bankruptcy plan

By The Associated Press | From Page: A1

 
California eyes $500 billion in water spending

By The Associated Press | From Page: A1, 2 Comments

Marine wants new charges in Iraq war crime tossed

By The Associated Press | From Page: A3, 3 Comments

 
Roseville officer accused of criminal threats

By The Associated Press | From Page: A3, 1 Comment

Poll: Democrats leading in all statewide races

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4, 3 Comments

 
Man charged with murder in SWAT officer shooting

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4

Teen arrested in threat at Sacramento school

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4, 1 Comment

 
Police make arrest in slaying of Oakland mom

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4

Retrial in assault case over stray cat feeding

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4, 4 Comments

 
Missing California hunter roasted bugs, lizards

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4, 2 Comments

Pilot identified in California jet crash

By The Associated Press | From Page: A4

 
Lawsuit: Surgical gowns let diseases pass through

By The Associated Press | From Page: A5

Fearing Ebola? Doctors say get a flu shot

By The Associated Press | From Page: A5

 
Questions, answers about California’s Ebola policy

By The Associated Press | From Page: A5

Maine in standoff with nurse over Ebola safeguards

By The Associated Press | From Page: A5

 
Relatives suspected poisoning in family’s deaths

By The Associated Press | From Page: A6

Pair convicted in secret $1.6 M Navy silencer deal

By The Associated Press | From Page: A7

 
Guard troops sent to site of Hawaii lava flow

By The Associated Press | From Page: A7

Terminally ill woman may postpone taking her life

By The Associated Press | From Page: A7, 1 Comment

 
Man’s own dog helps police bust him on drug charge

By The Associated Press | From Page: A7

Vatican admits Sistine Chapel frescoes ‘whitened’

By The Associated Press | From Page: A10 | Gallery

 
Israel closes Jerusalem holy site after shooting

By The Associated Press | From Page: A10

Fearing uprising, Iraq militants hunt ex-police

By The Associated Press | From Page: A10 | Gallery

 
Death penalty sought for trooper ambush suspect

By The Associated Press | From Page: A12

.

Opinion

Man’s prosecution unwarranted

By Letter to the Editor | From Page: A11, 9 Comments

 
Are we safe now?

By Letter to the Editor | From Page: A11, 20 Comments

 
Editorial Cartoons: Oct. 31, 2014

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A11

 
 
.

Living

Community Calendar: Oct. 31, 2014

By Susan Hiland | From Page: A2

 
Today in History: Oct. 31, 2014

By The Associated Press | From Page: A2

My husband sends texts filled with ‘dirty talk’ to an old flame

By Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar | From Page: A9

 
Horoscopes: Oct. 31, 2014

By Holiday Mathis | From Page: A9

.

Entertainment

Week in preview Oct. 31-Nov. 6, 2014

By Amy Maginnis-Honey | From Page: B1

 
Jorge Garcia makes the most of ‘Hawaii Five-O’

By The Associated Press | From Page: B1, 1 Comment

Monica Potter wants to save her show ‘Parenthood’

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

 
Review: Jake Gyllenhaal, tightly coiled and creepy

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

Exhibit on Paul Simon’s life to debut at Rock Hall

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

 
PBS touts 2013-14 ratings growth

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

Reality TV show ‘Big Brother’ to debut in China

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

 
‘The View’ now under ABC News as further revamping

By The Associated Press | From Page: B3

Review: ‘Sleep’ a decidedly average psych thriller

By The Associated Press | From Page: B3

 
Entertainment calendar Oct. 31, 2014

By Amy Maginnis-Honey | From Page: B4

Winter’s wife has blues listening to his new album

By The Associated Press | From Page: B5

 
Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Galway Kinnell dies

By The Associated Press | From Page: B6

TVGrid

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: B6

 
.

Sports

 
 
Benicia fends off Vanden, 35-21

By Nick DeCicco | From Page: B7 | Gallery

New dynasty: Giants capture 3rd title in 5 years

By The Associated Press | From Page: B7 | Gallery

 
Bye week helps 49ers Vernon Davis’ recovery

By The Associated Press | From Page: B8

Sonoma Raceway to host IndyCar Series finale in 2015

By The Associated Press | From Page: B8

 
Warriors exercise options on Barnes, Ezeli

By The Associated Press | From Page: B8

Mack making impact for Raiders even without sacks

By The Associated Press | From Page: B8 | Gallery

 
This date in sports history for Friday, Oct. 31, 2014

By The Associated Press | From Page: B9

 
Prep football capsules: Week 9

By Paul Farmer | From Page: B10

.

Business

Not so sweet: Chocolate prices are set to rise

By The Associated Press | From Page: B11, 1 Comment | Gallery

 
Apple CEO publicly acknowledges that he’s gay

By The Associated Press | From Page: B11, 1 Comment | Gallery

FTC accuses Gerber of false claim on baby formula

By The Associated Press | From Page: B11

 
.

Obituaries

Oscar Lee Vezeau

By Susan Hiland | From Page: A4

 
Robert Louis Wright

By Nancy Green | From Page: A4

.

Comics

Peanuts

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Baby Blues

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Baldo

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Blondie

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Zits

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Dilbert

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Frank and Ernest

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Sally Forth

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

B.C.

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
For Better or Worse

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Pickles

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Garfield

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Beetle Bailey

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Wizard of Id

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Rose is Rose

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

 
Get Fuzzy

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A8

Word Sleuth

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A9

 
Bridge

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A9

Sudoku

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A9

 
Crossword

By Daily Republic Syndicated Content | From Page: A9