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

Skip to comments.

PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR
2.18.06 | Mia T

Posted on 02/19/2006 10:13:06 PM PST by Mia T






DEBUNKING CINDY SHEEHAN
HEAR ABE LINCOLN/JOHNNY CASH + PBS' NEIL CONAN
by Mia T, 8.31.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


 

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East."--Cindy Sheehan

"And if you think I won't say bulls**t to the President, I say move on, cause I'll say what's on my mind."--Cindy Sheehan

 

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

Mia T, 5.15.04
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

 

"We didn't understand why the United States was there. We never thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States."--Cindy Sheehan

 


"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

President Bush



"He was murdered by Bush."--Cindy Sheehan

"You get that evil maniac out here, 'cause a Gold Star Mother, somebody whose blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."--Cindy Sheehan


"The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."--Cindy Sheehan

 

"This seems to be the President's reasons for continuing the war. Because he's killed so many American soldiers already, he has to kill more and I believe that's the most insane and immoral reason for continuing the war"--Cindy Sheehan

 

 

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Abraham Lincoln
"Gettysburg Address"
November 19, 1863




CINDY SHEEHAN: ECHO OF THE LEFT
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series
5

by Mia T, 8.28.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 911; abelincoln; bill; billclinton; cindysheehan; clinton; dysfunctional; failure; gettysburgaddress; hillary; hillaryclinton; honestabe; iraq; johnnycash; lincoln; losingbinladen; presidentsday; sedition; terror; terrorism; waronterror; washingtonsbirthday; wot

1 posted on 02/19/2006 10:13:11 PM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

ping


2 posted on 02/19/2006 10:16:26 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; Slyfox; ...

ping


3 posted on 02/19/2006 10:16:48 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

ping


4 posted on 02/19/2006 10:18:36 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
A related matter: the Honest-Abe conflation attempt by the 'congenital liar'....

'REFUSAL TO LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'
... IS HILLARY 'KNOWNOTHING VICTIM' CLINTON'S MIDDLE NAME
by Mia T, February 16, 2006
 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
audio montage, Lincoln-pose scoop:
rushlimbaugh.com

"The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing.

HEAR hillary clinton


READ MORE


5 posted on 02/19/2006 10:27:56 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Excellent, Mia T. The contrasting of the Gettysburg address to Cindy Sheehan's insane rants is hard-hitting.


6 posted on 02/19/2006 10:49:49 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

bttt


7 posted on 02/19/2006 11:58:37 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

One sick woman.


8 posted on 02/20/2006 12:10:21 AM PST by garylmoore (Homosexuality: Obviously unnatural, so obviously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

<< Abraham Lincoln
"Gettysburg Address"
November 19, 1863 >>

Perhaps America's earliest recorded example of effective political spin.

And most certainly, totally misrepresenting, as it does, the rational that drove Lincoln's prosecution of his United States of America's Constitution and States' sovereignty-bemanuring war and his positions on just about everything, the ownership of slaves included, to this day, still political spin's most efficacious-ever example!


9 posted on 02/20/2006 12:32:25 AM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

PS: Happy President Washington's Birthday!


10 posted on 02/20/2006 12:33:10 AM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR

Just to note, the Republicans are now the Party of Reagan, not Lincoln.

11 posted on 02/20/2006 12:59:12 AM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia T. bump.


12 posted on 02/20/2006 2:58:21 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
Happy President Washington's Birthday!--Brian Allen

HR 15951 shifted the observation of Washington's Birthday to the third Monday in February each year whether or not it fell on the 22nd. 

While still officially known as Washington's Birthday, it has become popularly (and I suspect in some cases at the state level, legally) known as "Presidents' Day," honoring both Washington and Lincoln.

And in this misguided age wherein the idea of 'equal' is, on a daily basis, uniformly and reflexively and by edict turned on its head, Presidents' Day today honors all the other presidents, as well. Even him.






13 posted on 02/20/2006 4:24:24 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks Mia T.


14 posted on 02/20/2006 4:28:54 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

thx :)


15 posted on 02/20/2006 4:43:28 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

thanx :)


16 posted on 02/20/2006 4:43:43 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

thx :)


17 posted on 02/20/2006 4:46:33 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

thanx ;)


18 posted on 02/20/2006 5:03:36 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zacs Mom

ping


19 posted on 02/20/2006 5:09:51 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zacs Mom

Did that software help?


20 posted on 02/20/2006 5:10:40 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks Mia. Selfish Cindy...why fight for freedom, I have mine!


21 posted on 02/20/2006 6:46:43 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Beautiful..!


22 posted on 02/20/2006 7:07:06 AM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Cindy has a MSM camera stuck on her butt.


23 posted on 02/20/2006 8:16:10 AM PST by bmwcyle (We got permits, yes we DO! We got permits, how 'bout YOU?;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

bump


24 posted on 02/20/2006 8:30:53 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

thanx. :)


25 posted on 02/20/2006 8:31:19 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

.. in her own mind, anyway. ;)


26 posted on 02/20/2006 8:39:29 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: UWSrepublican

presidents' day ping


27 posted on 02/20/2006 2:13:47 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
"...States' sovereignty-bemanuring war..."

"...and that the Union shall be perpetual."

I guess some people should have looked up the word "perpetual" before signing the Articles of Confederation and transferring sovereignty away from the individual State to the new nation.

28 posted on 02/20/2006 2:24:13 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Republican Evolution, From Lincoln to Reagan
By DOUGLAS BRINKLEY

29 posted on 02/20/2006 2:50:41 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Mia T
Sorry Luis - good try but no Chrismas Box.

The Declaration of Independence trumps all other Founding Law and it and the Federalist Papers and every learned, objective and/or commonsensical reading of that Law and/or adjudication based in that Law, rather than in the wishful thinking and/or creative parsing and/or fiat-rationalizing "interpretations" reveals its every word's singleness of meaning and the Law's absolute meaning.

The feral gummint was intended to be nothing more than the equivilent of a corporate board of directors, subordinate to the Sovereign States and subsequently strictly limited in its powers by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and by the Sovereign States' appointed United States Senate.

The traitor, Lincoln, not only took a blowtorch to our nation's founding Law but also set in motion the rot whose putridness was precipitously made a hundred times more malodorous by the un-and-anti Americanism abrogations and other crimes perpetrated upon it by the ghastly F D Roosevelt and by such of his every-bit-as loathesome and fearsome successors as the execrable Georgia-Jimmy Cartah and its latest flotsam, the recidivist, rank, fetid and stinking B-J Blythe Crime Family.

And then there are the feral court benches created by all of the above.

Thank you, Mr Lincoln.

NOT.

Clue to the "proper 'interpretation'" of the following: READ the BLACK WORDS on the white ground - and ignore the rest!


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, [Note the lower case "u" - BA] in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

30 posted on 02/20/2006 3:47:58 PM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Another excellent post/ bttt


31 posted on 02/20/2006 4:12:25 PM PST by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
"The Declaration of Independence trumps all other Founding Law."

What a desperate reach, the Declaration is not Law, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are.

If in fact, and as you claim, the Declaration was the Supreme Law, then why wasn't slavery made illegal by the Declaration?

Yours is a desperate reach from a desperate man.

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; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwords confirmed by the legislatures of every State.


And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

Now, go huff and puff all you want, it won't change the facts.

The Supreme Law of the Law is The Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation established a perpetual Union, removing the right to secede.

The articles of Confederation transferred sovereignty from the individual States to the United States, and when the Confederacy broke their covenant, they got their asses handed to them for trying to do so.

32 posted on 02/20/2006 5:00:09 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

<< Yours is a desperate reach from a desperate man. >>

Goodness me.

And here was I believing I had been engaged by a man who though Absolutely wrong in his interpretation of our nation's Founding Law, might at least have been rational.

And not, as it turns out, to have come huffing, puffing and but half-armed to this battle of wits he initiated.

Silly me.

Thank you for having shared.

Cordially - Brian


33 posted on 02/20/2006 6:26:09 PM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen
"...our nation's Founding Law..."

Is the Constitution, not the list of grievances that were the reason why we separated from the Crown.

Calling The Declaration "law" is laughable.

Let's see what Jefferson called the Declaration:

"On the 24th, a committee which had been appointed to prepare a declaration of the causes of taking up arms, brought in their report (drawn I believe by J. Rutledge) which not being liked they recommitted it on the 26th, and added Mr. Dickinson and myself to the committee. On the rising of the house, the committee having not yet met, I happened to find myself near Govr W. Livingston, and proposed to him to draw the paper. He excused himself and proposed that I should draw it. On my pressing him with urgency, "we are as yet but new acquaintances, sir, said he, why are you so earnest for my doing it?" "Because, said I, I have been informed that you drew the Address to the people of Gr. Britain, a production certainly of the finest pen in America."

The man who wrote it called it "a declaration of the causes of taking up arms", you'd think that if he was writing the Supreme Law of the Land, he's call it such.

Don't you think?

Sorry, that was a silly question.

Let's go on.

The Articles of Confederation cleared the way for the Constitution; which created a stronger, Federal government. The Articles of Confederation created "a perpetual union", and those who signed it could hardly make the argument that having signed agreement to a perpetual union, secession would be retained as a right of the individual States; you can't have a union that's both perpetual, and dissoluble.

George Washington himself called the United States under the Articles of Confederation "little more than the shadow without the substance", and agitated for a stronger Federal government, this agitation by Washington and others resulted in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

You'd think that if the Declaration of Independence was in fact "the Supreme Law of the land" as you claim that it is, the people responsible for drafting it would not continue drafting more documents to govern that new nation, including one that clearly states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

The States did become free and independent of the Crown, just as they stated they would be in the Declaration, and as free and independent States, they then formed a "perpetual union", and eventually consented to become a nation.

Again, you can't agree to become something perpetual, and retain the right to dissolve the agreement.

Noted is the fact that in this "battle of wits" as you call it, you called retreat.

One last thing...what did the man who wrote the Constitution have to say about the principles behind the Constitution?

We can read his letter to Thomas Jefferson and find out:

James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson.

You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its session till the 17th of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject, which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.

It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.

It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.

Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.

There...now you've learned more from me in a few hours, than you did on all seven years you spent in High School.

34 posted on 02/20/2006 7:30:00 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; Brian Allen
The Articles of Confederation cleared the way for the Constitution; which created a stronger, Federal government. The Articles of Confederation created "a perpetual union", and those who signed it could hardly make the argument that having signed agreement to a perpetual union, secession would be retained as a right of the individual States; you can't have a union that's both perpetual, and dissoluble.--Luis Gonzalez

Interesting discussion.

From another angle:

Notwithstanding the 200-plus years of union since the ratification of The Articles of Confederation, it seems to me creating "a perpetual union" by edict was an extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit, not unlike decreeing into existence a perpetual motion machine. Sooner or later, it seems to me, the laws of nature must prevail.

35 posted on 02/21/2006 1:22:43 AM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

<< .... creating "a perpetual union" by edict was an extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit, not unlike decreeing into existence a perpetual motion machine. Sooner or later, it seems to me, [G-d's and] the laws of nature must prevail. >>

Precisely.


36 posted on 02/21/2006 6:38:32 AM PST by Brian Allen (How arrogant are we to believe our career political-power-lusting lumpen somehow superior to theirs?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"...it seems to me creating "a perpetual union" by edict was an extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit..."

Calling the Founding Fathers arrogant is quite a concept.

Nevertheless, a perpetual union was formed, and thus far, nothing has been able to dissolve it.

In proper perspective, this "extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit" of the Founders, was far less of each category than the notion of the Divine Rights of Kings.

And lastly, the attempt at dissolving the perpetual union was crushed.

Better luck next time.

37 posted on 02/21/2006 12:22:54 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

1-If you are arguing that the union decreed perpetual is in fact perpetual because "thus far, nothing has been able to dissolve it," then you miss my point entirely.

2-I don't quite see the point of your relativistic argument. Why replace a flawed constuct with another flawed one?

3-I would argue that argument turns on the attempt/desire to dissolve the union, rather than the outcome.


38 posted on 02/21/2006 7:38:56 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzales

construct


39 posted on 02/21/2006 7:40:12 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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

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

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