Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed
Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak

[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]

For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.

For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; apaulogia; apaulogists; chuckdevore; civilwar; dixie; federalreserve; fff; greatestpresident; ronpaul; ronpaulisright; secession; traitorworship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-861 next last

1 posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:34 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Ron Paul’s got some loose screws rattling around in there somewhere.


2 posted on 08/05/2010 6:05:16 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States

When in the course of human events it becomes.... etc.
3 posted on 08/05/2010 6:07:50 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ

Well, that only works if you WIN. If you win it becomes legal. When you lose it was always illegal.

The difference between a rebellion and a revolution is success! Success makes all the difference in the world.

Hannibal’s brother ALSO crossed the Alps with elephants, even more of them! But while Hannibal kicked buttocks in Italy for sixteen years, his brother was defeated and killed. We all know Hannibal’s name, who the hell was his brother? ;)


4 posted on 08/05/2010 6:11:16 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
As for states not having the right to secede, that is obvious, as the United States was created with the ratification of the Constitution hence only a legal dissolving of the same could allow a state to become independent. The states that voted for secession in 1860-61 could have followed the legal route in calling for a Constitutional convention or for an amendment to the Constitution allowing them to secede. But, they chose the route of rebellion and war instead.

The USC is silent on the issue of secession. It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.

The US Senate tried to make secession illegal by legislation, which was voted down, I think this was 1860.

5 posted on 08/05/2010 6:12:11 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Maybe the outcome will be different the next time...


6 posted on 08/05/2010 6:12:54 AM PDT by Russ (Repeal the 17th amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: central_va
The USC is silent on the issue of secession.

That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment.

7 posted on 08/05/2010 6:14:38 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (For the record, McCarthy was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The victor writes the history books.


8 posted on 08/05/2010 6:15:49 AM PDT by tgusa (Investment plan: blued steel, brass, lead, copper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

While I don’t have as extreme a view as Mr. Paul, I do think Lincoln mishandled the entire situation and his own actions contributed to the events leading up to the war.

Think of it this way: what other major country had a deadly civil war when they abolished slavery? The vast majority of countries found political ways to end slavery without massive bloodshed. This is something Lincoln failed to do. Sure, once the shooting started it was too late, but there seem to me to have been a lot of mistakes earlier that hardened everyone’s positions and lead to the conflict. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe not. We’ll never know for sure. But I don’t think analyzing this question should be beyond the range of discourse.

An interesting question, which nobody asks because it is basically radioactive in today’s environment, is: What if some compromise could have been reached that would have ended slavery without bloodshed, say, ten years later, around 1875. Some kind of phase-out period coupled with economic aid to the south to help them transition away from slave labor perhaps? Would that have been better than killing hundreds of thousands of people? Or would the moral thing to do still have been to immediately end slavery and doom hundreds of thousands of people to grisly deaths and many more to horrible injuries, followed by a hundred years of strife?


9 posted on 08/05/2010 6:15:54 AM PDT by drangundsturm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
"As for states not having the right to secede, that is obvious, as the United States was created with the ratification of the Constitution hence only a legal dissolving of the same could allow a state to become independent."

This is total BS. No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing. It had been less than 100 years since the Revolutionary war and gubmint oppression was fresh on everyone's minds. States do indeed have the power and the right to secede. State Legislatures had to approve entry into the union and State Legislatures can decide to pull out if the people of that state deem it necessary to do so. It was the Feds who said no to this and that is what sparked the war. It's been a downhill slide in terms of a massively overreaching Federal gubmint every since.....

10 posted on 08/05/2010 6:16:53 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

I didn’t realize Ron Paul was this ignorant. Is that quote accurate? Out of context?


11 posted on 08/05/2010 6:22:49 AM PDT by cookcounty ("Today's White House reporters seem one ball short of a ping pong scrimmage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm
coupled with economic aid to the south . . .

The federal government did not engage in massive aid programs involving cash then. They didn't have the money for it. Remember that the income tax was still in the distant future.

I added the "involving cash" because they did provide lots of largess to fund the railroads but that was done by giving away land.

12 posted on 08/05/2010 6:23:33 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
How wrong can ya get?

Stang: The GOP, Red From The Start....
*****
Thomas Dilorenzo...Our Republic Cannot Be Restored Until GOP Destroyed!
*****
COMMIE CHICAGO~ Al Benson
*****


FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Chuck Baldwin Archive
*****

13 posted on 08/05/2010 6:24:09 AM PDT by gunnyg (WE ARE BEHIND "ENEMY WITHIN" LINES, SURROUNDED, Our 'Novembers' Are Behind Us...If Ya Can "grok" it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Cant people just disagree sometimes? Why are people always looking to create a devil as opposed to simply disagreeing on a historical event?


14 posted on 08/05/2010 6:24:20 AM PDT by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

“For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States”

Sounds like 13 Colonies I heard of once. They did it “illegally” once too.


15 posted on 08/05/2010 6:25:52 AM PDT by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Ron Paul acolytes include ADAM KOKESH the anti-war protestor

that says enough...


16 posted on 08/05/2010 6:26:16 AM PDT by RaceBannon (RON PAUL: THE PARTY OF TRUTHERS, TRAITORS AND UFO CHASERS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalonDJ
"When in the course of human events it becomes.... etc."

Yes, and they formed this new alliance called the Federal government. All the southern states signed onto it. Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede? The southern states were performing an act of rebellion and the federal government had every right to protect the union and to secure the liberty of the enslaved people. What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it's people?

As the article points out, Lincoln and the Republicans were trying to do this through peaceful and political means. It was the southern states that wanted to oppose this through armed rebellion. Ron Paul is wrong and it sometimes makes me wonder about his son. I hope he's not crazy like his Dad.
17 posted on 08/05/2010 6:27:45 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm
"his own actions contributed to the events leading up to the war."

Hostilities began 4 months before Lincoln was sworn in.

Are you speaking of his actions as a one-term member member of the House from 1846-48?

18 posted on 08/05/2010 6:29:44 AM PDT by cookcounty ("Today's White House reporters seem one ball short of a ping pong scrimmage.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman
Remember that the income tax was still in the distant future.

Actually, today is the anniversary of the first income tax implementation in 1861 by the Lincoln Administration and Congress.

19 posted on 08/05/2010 6:29:53 AM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

“What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it’s people?”

Like the God given right of self rule? A government “by the people, for the people”?

You might wanna re-think your position because your entire post contradicts the last sentence.


20 posted on 08/05/2010 6:32:10 AM PDT by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

To many liberals jump onto a word or phrase out of context and run with it against you. And they always couch it in some smarmy “I have always admired you but ....” as DeVore does this here.

Rand Paul has a THEORETICAL discussion, and the libs go crazy as if it they never heard of the “devil’s advocate” concept.

Imagine if, instead of slavery, the civial war was about the southern states rebelling against the US governement doing something like, oh, I dont know... Forcing you to buy health insurance.

The southern states were trying to secede from the union like they were promised they could do if the union wasn’t working out for them

The issue just happened to be slavery. (Now watch - some dumbass lib will go “SEE HE LIKES SLAVERY~!!!!)


21 posted on 08/05/2010 6:32:27 AM PDT by Mr. K (Physically unable to proofreed (<---oops! see?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden; All
All the southern states signed onto it. Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede?

If secession was illegal would it surprise if the US Senate voted on legislation making it illegal? Why would they vote on something that was already codified?

Original source: US Senate records: Look at the vote on Article 8 Yeas 18 nays 28, VOTED DOWN!

22 posted on 08/05/2010 6:33:22 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
The right to secede was understood by the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution would not have been ratified if secession were precluded. Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states, subject to the whim of whatever agenda floats the boat of that government or those states. No state would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and no state would seek membership into a confederacy that had the power to imprison that state or hold it hostage. For an analogy, consider the compact of marriage. Is divorce an ultimate option? Of course it is. A state has the same option should circumstances get to the point where differences become irreconcilable, or basic safety and security is at risk.
23 posted on 08/05/2010 6:34:10 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Yes, he really said it.


24 posted on 08/05/2010 6:34:59 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Paul problem with Lincoln is his idea of union thru force. If states want to leave, let them. Its their life, their state and they should be allowed to leave as they so please. Just as America left the British Empire


25 posted on 08/05/2010 6:35:11 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm
Some kind of phase-out period coupled with economic aid to the south to help them transition away from slave labor perhaps? Would that have been better than killing hundreds of thousands of people?

It would certainly have been better, but it wasn't going to happen. The intransigence of the South over the issue of slavery outweighed every other consideration at the time. It wasn't even a question of outlawing slavery, but of simply whether it would be allowed to expand. And the excesses of the Southern states, even against their own citizenry, were such as to indicate that they were not about to give it up without a struggle.

26 posted on 08/05/2010 6:35:34 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Slavery ended in Europe without bloodshed, but Abe has been martyred and canonized by socialist academia for his “holy crusade”. Lincoln enacted the first ever income tax to pay for his horrible, bloody, senseless war on the South.

Later, Woodrow Wilson made the income tax “progressive”, to prepare the U.S. for entering World War I in Europe, which accomplished absolutely nothing, other than insuring a second European war two decades later.

Yes, historians love both Lincoln and Wilson. Apparently, the more blood you have on your hands, the higher your presidential rating.

By the way, is it any wonder that Obama loves Lincoln more than any of his other predecessors ?


27 posted on 08/05/2010 6:35:48 AM PDT by colonel mosby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

“Hostilities began 4 months before Lincoln was sworn in.”

And just what were those hostilities? South Carolina seceding in December, 1860 was not a hostility.


28 posted on 08/05/2010 6:37:08 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

I have it on the authority of several FReepers that Ron Paul cannot be wrong and is in fact The Lord God.

(GoldStandard this means you and I hope you take note when you see this using that other screen name you now hide behind)


29 posted on 08/05/2010 6:37:36 AM PDT by Artemis Webb (DeMint 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak; Sidebar Moderator
Please file in bloggers/personal

Is there any reason you can't post the entire article here?

Didn't see this blog site on the Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

30 posted on 08/05/2010 6:38:11 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment.

It would not seem. What don't you understand about the term “Perpetual Union”?

From the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union;

Article XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

31 posted on 08/05/2010 6:39:43 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Another great rock and roll band name: The Radioactive Wild Boars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
"That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment."

The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states and the state's people. This is not a catch all for everything under the sun. Whenever the word "power" is used in the Constitution it refers to something that the people delegate to a government as a function to perform on their behalf. Examples of this would be schools, welfare programs, military etc... All of these things (yes even welfare) are talked about by the founding fathers. If the states want to have a massive welfare program to feed the poor, that is up to each individual state.

However, nowhere does any founding father talk about the power of the state to secede from this new thing they wanted to form called the United States. Can you point to something where a founding father talked about the states power to secede in the future from the United States? I can give you an example of the opposite. After the war of 1812 the New England states talked of seceeding at the Hartford Convention. Madison (you know that guy who wrote the Constitution) was President at the time, was against this and would not have allowed them to secede.
32 posted on 08/05/2010 6:41:20 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Good point for this one, as it is Chuck Devore’s article, not mine. Admin, if possible, please post Chuck’s entire article. Cheers,


33 posted on 08/05/2010 6:42:48 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede?

All powers not granted ...

Actually your question is backwards - where was the federal government given the right to force a state to remain? The states were soveriegn and had only given those sovereign powers to the national government as were deemed necessary for the good of all states. There is no clause which disallows a state from removing itself from the compact, nor any provision granting the federal government the power to compell a member to remain ...

34 posted on 08/05/2010 6:42:55 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

oh, man, this thread is going to get NASTY. Some heads gonna be EXPLODING here real soon! Popcorn?


35 posted on 08/05/2010 6:43:33 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker
No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing.

1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.

36 posted on 08/05/2010 6:43:55 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

Good point. As Lincoln explained, “more perfect” meant “stronger.”


37 posted on 08/05/2010 6:44:47 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

The Articles of Confederation were determind to be unworkable, and were replaced by the Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land. As far as I know, the Constitution does not anywhere use the term “Perpetual Union”.


38 posted on 08/05/2010 6:45:11 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Yep.....


39 posted on 08/05/2010 6:46:10 AM PDT by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states....

Precisely. A state being "held prisoner by the Federal gubmint" sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? It also sounds a lot like the strangle hold the Department of (re)Education has on gubmint skools, the Department of Energy has on the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Federally induced water shortages in the Central Valley of California, and the list goes on and on and on.....

40 posted on 08/05/2010 6:46:53 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

>seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President.

US COnstitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Given that the power of succession [withdrawing from the agreement of the Constitution, ‘independence’] is not given to the United States by the Constitution it stands to reason that such powers are either the State’s or the People’s; therefore I cannot in good conscience agree with terming their declaration of independence from the federal government as ‘illegal.’

>After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

Let’s look at the history & facts here:
1 — SC declared its independence on 20 Dec 1860
2 — The ‘first shot’ was fired at approx. 0430 on 12 Apr 1861
3 — Prior to this ‘first shot’ repeated requests/demands for the evacuation of Fort Sumter were made by SC

Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?


41 posted on 08/05/2010 6:47:30 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

“1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn’t fly.”

Well, secession may not have been, or may not be successful, but the right to secede was not precluded.


42 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:29 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DwFry
"Like the God given right of self rule? A government “by the people, for the people”?"

When states joined the United States, that means that all the people in those United States have formed together, not just the Southern States. Every citizen has a duty to ensure the liberties of other citizens are not infringed. According to your logic, if you live in Texas you should not care whether the people in California have their right of self defense or free speech infringed upon.
43 posted on 08/05/2010 6:50:02 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede?

Government does not give rights, they are inherent within man and his relationships and come from God. Your premise is flawed.

44 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:15 AM PDT by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.

So what? We're talking about events before the War of Northern Aggression. What happened afterward has no bearing on the concept of secession prior to TWONA....

45 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:29 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"If secession was illegal would it surprise if the US Senate voted on legislation making it illegal?"

That Senate journal you put forward is dated 1861. Right in the middle of the secession crisis. Can you show me where the founders thought that states had the power to secede?
46 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:48 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
This is not a catch all for everything under the sun.

- Uh, yes it IS!

Any power not granted to the federal government WAS NOT GRANTED!

All of these things (yes even welfare) are talked about by the founding fathers.

Welfare of whom?

47 posted on 08/05/2010 6:52:15 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states and the state's people. This is not a catch all for everything under the sun.

It is not a catch all for everything under the sun, it is a catch all for everything under the sun that is not assigned by the Constitution as a power of the new federal government.

48 posted on 08/05/2010 6:54:15 AM PDT by Onelifetogive (For the record, McCarthy was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
"Government does not give rights, they are inherent within man and his relationships and come from God."

You are correct. I meant to say the power, not the right to secede. By using the proper word, my premise is not flawed.
49 posted on 08/05/2010 6:55:03 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

A supposed constitutional right for a state to secede did not occur to people until the 1820s. It never even came up during the convention or ratification.


50 posted on 08/05/2010 6:55:03 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-861 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson