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

Skip to comments.

Court turns down U.S. soldier who wouldn't serve U.N. peacekeeping mission
North County Times ^ | April 23, 2007 | AP

Posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by rightalien

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by a U.S. soldier who received a bad conduct discharge after refusing to serve on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia.

Former Army medic Michael New has been fighting his discharge for the past 11 years. New argued that he was not afforded all his legal rights in the course of the court-martial that stemmed from his refusal to wear the U.N. insignia on his Army uniform.

He was supposed to be among a few hundred soldiers who were sent to Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, to guard against the spread of unrest from other areas torn by ethnic turmoil.

The justices declined to hear his case without comment.

The case is U.S., ex rel. New v. Rumsfeld, 06-691.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: marines; michaelnew; military; soldier; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
So my soldier takes the oath to the American Constitution and ends up under the blue helmet?? On "The Land of Freedom"!

By the way, instead of blue it should be red, the communist color. At least it would be more honest.

1 posted on 04/24/2007 12:42:33 PM PDT by rightalien
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rightalien

This guys should have been the first pardon. There isn’t a damn thing wrong with refusing to serve an organization that doesn’t report to the US Constitution.


2 posted on 04/24/2007 12:48:11 PM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

I have mixed emotions on this. I can sympathize with him. Make your reservations known and do your duty. Bush should pardon him and grant an honorable discharge after an appropriate time.


3 posted on 04/24/2007 12:50:32 PM PDT by depressed in 06 (Bolshecrat, the despicable party of what if and whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Michael New is right and the courts are wrong. If I were President, I would restore New’s status and change hsi discharge to honorable. I would order that the use of UN insignia be ended.

Tehre is NO leagal basis for putting the UN logo on US military uniforms.

How old is New? Is he 35 yeat? Maybe he could run for President. :)


4 posted on 04/24/2007 12:52:01 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

I don’t lke the idea of a soldier refusing to do his duty but in this case I can’t really call this his duty.


5 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:19 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Think the left will rally to this guy’s cause?

I don’t think so either.


6 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:24 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06
Bush should pardon him and grant an honorable discharge after an appropriate time.

He's more interested in granting amnesty to 10,000,000 illegals.

7 posted on 04/24/2007 12:55:32 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
And once again the Supreme Court proves that it has no loyalty to America / Americans. He is a United States Soldier, not a United Nations (which is a contradiction in terms anyway) soldier. Someone needs to start a petition that we all can sign and send to President W.
8 posted on 04/24/2007 12:58:45 PM PDT by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

Bush should pardon him.


9 posted on 04/24/2007 1:01:33 PM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: depressed in 06

“Make your reservations known and do your duty.”


But his duty was to the United States of America, not the United Nations.
He enlisted in the United States Army.


10 posted on 04/24/2007 1:02:22 PM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
"and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

What part of this didn't he understand?

11 posted on 04/24/2007 1:06:10 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
And he was given orders to support a UN mission. Sorry, but I side with the supremes here.

I sympathize with those who think his assigned mission was crap, but so is latrine duty. We don't all get the assignments we want, but we must honor the chain of command. It is not an individual soldiers place to question the mission. This is not an unlawful order situation, anymore than having the UN in New York is unlawful. I don't like it, but its not unlawful.

12 posted on 04/24/2007 1:08:21 PM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
This is a tough one.

As much as I despise the UN, if your commander orders you to join a multinational force, I don't think you have the right to refuse that order as a member of the military.

He should have done his best to serve with honor. If that put him at odds with his commanders while performing his duties, then he should have reported the situation up the chain of command.

I however have very little information on which to base my opinions, so it is quite possible that the circumstances justified his actions.

13 posted on 04/24/2007 1:09:14 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
(1) As a soldier, Michael New reported to the Commander-In-Chief and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

(2) The US Congress, as it is authorized to do by the Constitution, signed the Charter of the United Nations - a treaty which gave the US certain privileges and certain responsibilities as a party to the Charter.

(3) One of the responsibilities the US has under the Charter is to supply peacekeepers in certain contexts.

(4) The Commander-In-Chief is authorized by Congress to assign members of the US military to fulfill those treaty obligations.

(5) Michael New was selected.

(6) Michael New was insubordinate and violated his Constitutional oath.

(6) He is lucky he is not in prison.

14 posted on 04/24/2007 1:10:20 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
He enlisted in the United States Army.

Which is a country that holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and which has certain responsibilities in that role.

If he doesn't like the treaties Congress signs, he can take it up with his Congressman. He cannot disobey a legal order and get away with it because he is ignorant of how US law works.

15 posted on 04/24/2007 1:14:18 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

” ...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...”
~~~~~
From the FAQ, Leatherneck magazine...
~~~~~

What are the oaths of enlistment and oaths for officers?

Enlisted: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Officer: (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


16 posted on 04/24/2007 1:16:51 PM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

If I were President, I would restore New’s status and change hsi discharge to honorable.

Too bad you or any other reasonable person isn’t president. This is the same president holding 3 US Border Agents in prison for politically connected Mexican drug dealers and is willing to extradite a US citizen bounty hunter for capturing a politically connected seriel rapist.


17 posted on 04/24/2007 1:27:16 PM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

Not to mention that this President is holding our troops prisoner at Pendleton and elsewhere for doing their jobs and killing the enemy.


18 posted on 04/24/2007 1:31:43 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Well said. I’ve no love for the corrupt and incompetent United Nations. I’ve no love for the corrupt and degenerate President William J. Clinton.

However Spec. New was given lawful orders to carry out, he was also lawfully told what the uniform of the day was. He chose to unlawfully refuse those orders.

He deserves a dishonorable discharge. If he wanted to oppose US participation in UN peacekeeping, he should have not joined the Army. He should have run for Congress. It is not up to individual soldiers to decide the public policies of the United States or to determione what is and what is not the appropriate uniform of the US Army.

If he had been ordered to wear a uniform of pink polka dots and a tutu, the only appropriate response is “Yes, sir!”

19 posted on 04/24/2007 1:37:13 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps (Past the schoolhouse / Take it slow / Let the little / Shavers grow / BURMA-SHAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

The UN has no loyalty or concern for the soldiers forced to serve under them.

A while back a Canadian military doctor was shot in Haiti. Pakistani troops refused to take him to a hospital, instead taking pictures of him as he died.

On the Israel / Lebanon border a Canadian soldier serving the UN screamed to everyone that would listen, that the islamderthals were using them for cover. The UN refused to extract him then screamed when he was killed.

UN vehicles have repeatedly been filmed transporting terrorists in the mideast.


20 posted on 04/24/2007 1:37:50 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

TRAITOROUS GLOBALISTS.

GRRRR.


21 posted on 04/24/2007 1:40:17 PM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien
Unbelievable.

New's case seem strong to me. He pointed to "constitutional, statutory and regulatory provisions which prohibited the Army from allowing US soldiers to be assigned to the UN for military purposes without the specific approvial of Congress. (Clinton did this unilaterally).

He also pointed to numerous legal provisions which prohibit the display of medals or badges from other governments--including international organizations--on Army uniforms without the consent of Congress. One regulation prohibits all foreign insignia--even with the consent of Congress--on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). New was court-maritaled for his refusal to wear the UN insignia and badges on his BDU!"

He chose to honor his oath. It's dispointing to see him not exonorated. This is what happens when you homeschool your children--they don't go along just to get along. It's hard to assemble a freedom-destroying standing army if the participants refuse to violate their oaths.

(From an old Homeschool Court Reporter article, May/June 1997)

22 posted on 04/24/2007 1:46:28 PM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

My constitutional law professor represented New in some of the previous cases over this some years back.


23 posted on 04/24/2007 1:50:21 PM PDT by Dan Middleton (Radio...Free...Mars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

We also know that the phrase “I was just following orders of my superiors” doesn’t justify evil done in the name of those orders!


24 posted on 04/24/2007 1:56:17 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
We also know that the phrase “I was just following orders of my superiors” doesn’t justify evil done in the name of those orders!

Michael New wasn't being ordered to do "evil" - he was being ordered to stand his flipping post.

25 posted on 04/25/2007 5:33:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton

Herb Titus?


26 posted on 04/25/2007 5:40:56 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

You got that right.


27 posted on 04/25/2007 6:10:54 AM PDT by Unicorn (Too many wimps around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Refer to http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1995/nov95/col-11-2.html

He can, and should, disobey an illegal order.


28 posted on 04/25/2007 6:24:12 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
He can, and should, disobey an illegal order.

You're not very good at reading, are you?

At no point have I argued that soldiers should obey illegal orders.

I have pointed out that Michael New was not given an illegal order but a completely legal one.

Michael New does not get to decide which treaties Congress is allowed to sign and which ones they aren't allowed to sign.

29 posted on 04/25/2007 6:27:46 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Treaties, no matter how idiotic, are binding.

Article VI of the US Constitution.

New needs to call on Congress to revoke the treaty, doubt that will happen though.


30 posted on 04/25/2007 6:33:10 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
New needs to call on Congress to revoke the treaty

Interesting thesis - you'd need to win the Democrats over in order to get enough votes for Congress to withdraw from the UN Charter.

And since Michael New is a whiny slacker coward, he is precisely the kind of guy the Democrats in Congress represent - so he might be more effective than one would think.

31 posted on 04/25/2007 6:39:26 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Idaho Whacko
There isn’t a damn thing wrong with refusing to serve an organization that doesn’t report to the US Constitution.

It's an alliance, and is explicitly anticipated under the US Constitution.

32 posted on 04/25/2007 6:40:38 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44
I sympathize with those who think his assigned mission was crap, but so is latrine duty. We don't all get the assignments we want, but we must honor the chain of command. It is not an individual soldiers place to question the mission. This is not an unlawful order situation, anymore than having the UN in New York is unlawful. I don't like it, but its not unlawful.

I agree 100%.

33 posted on 04/25/2007 6:41:39 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I’ll type slower.

The order is illegal.

Also, it is not a treaty. It is a Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) issued by President Clinton.


34 posted on 04/25/2007 6:45:16 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
The order is illegal.

No, it is not illegal.

It is not illegal under the US Constitution.

It is not illegal under the federal code.

It is not illegal under the UCMJ.

Also, it is not a treaty. It is a Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD 25) issued by President Clinton.

A directive issued pursuant to the treaty.

Entering into treaties is Congress' job. Enforcing treaties is the Executive's job.

You should already be aware of the seapration of powers - it's sad I have to teach these basics to you.

35 posted on 04/25/2007 6:49:29 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

seapration of powers


Use spell check.

What is basic is you.


36 posted on 04/25/2007 6:54:33 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Use spell check.

Translation;

"I, Stark_GOP, know that I have no counterarguments to offer because I have no clue what I am talking about. Therefore, I will nitpick on spelling - hoping that people will not notice I have nothing intelligent to say."

Sad stuff.

37 posted on 04/25/2007 6:56:58 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

No. I have other things to do which are more important than to get into an argument with a fool.


38 posted on 04/25/2007 7:02:52 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin2

No, Mike Farris.


39 posted on 04/25/2007 7:31:44 AM PDT by Dan Middleton (Radio...Free...Mars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Copout number 2.

Yawn.

40 posted on 04/25/2007 7:49:36 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
I'm with you on this one (I think).

The guy should not have enlisted if he was not willing to play by the rules and obey as directed by the President. Like him or not, Clinton was the President and elected to use the military in this manner. The proper choice of action is to elect honorable men who will support the USA first and not put the UN's agenda ahead of our own.

This guy enlisted in '93, after Clinton was elected. He should have known Clinton's policy on this or did he come to the conclusion later?

Sorry, but this is in the same category as those who suddenly become Conscientious Objectors after a war starts. They knew the rules going in and they should obey them.

Before anyone gives me grief over this, I will say this:

I agree fully with the guys position as far as US troops serving under the guise of the UN. But, I'm not the President and it is his opinion that soldiers agree to support, like it or not.

I do hope President Bush pardons him, but I would bet he does not. It is a bet I would love to lose.

41 posted on 04/25/2007 9:22:38 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dan Middleton
My constitutional law professor represented New in some of the previous cases over this some years back.

And.....................................

42 posted on 04/25/2007 9:26:34 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
“Sorry, but this is in the same category as those who suddenly become Conscientious Objectors after a war starts. They knew the rules going in and they should obey them.”

*On Feb. 18, 1993, Michael New enlisted in the United States Army for an eightyear term. He received training as a medical specialist, then spent two months on a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Kuwait. While there, he wore a U.S. Army uniform and answered to American superior officers. He was deployed to Schweinfurt, Germany, in July 1995.

* On Aug. 21, 1995, Specialist New was told that the 550 members of his unit would be sent to Macedonia in October as “United Nations Fighting Persons.” While there, the troops would “observe, monitor, report and make the UN presence known.” They would be required to wear a United Nations uniform, carry a United Nations identification card and serve under UN superior officers.

He has served overseas. He is not a coward.
He wants to wear his country’s uniform and serve under his country’s leadership.

43 posted on 04/25/2007 9:55:36 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
He is not a coward.

Who said he was?

Not all CO's are cowards either. For example a CO who serves honorably as a corpsman is not a coward.

44 posted on 04/25/2007 11:26:12 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("The military Mission has long since been accomplished" -- Harry Reid, April 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

One person on this thread called him a “a whiny slacker coward”. Not you.

You are right about CO’s. Haven’t some received the Congressional Medal of Honor?


45 posted on 04/25/2007 12:07:17 PM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Auscwitz guards stood at their posts too! Look, we’re going to disagree on this, but New took a pricipled stand that he figured would get him into trouble...he’ll have to pay for it. He’s lucky to not have gotten any prison time.

Just the fact that he said no to a malignant body such as the UN, put the New Order crowd on notice that many Americans won’t “come along quietly” into the abyss. That Yugo-slav conflict we got pulled into, was many more times unjustified, then what our intervention in Iraq ever was.


46 posted on 04/25/2007 1:19:55 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Auscwitz guards stood at their posts too!

You are comparing the US soldiers who did their job in the Balkans to genocidal Nazis?

47 posted on 04/25/2007 1:23:38 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rightalien

PRESS RELEASE - for immediate release
23 April 2007

contact: Daniel New, Project Manager 254-796-2173 ddnew@mikenew.com
Michael New Action Fund
Michael New Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 100
Iredell, Texas 76649

Former Army Specialist Michael New’s petition to the US Supreme Court, asking them to review his case, and the lack of due process and the sudden change in the legal “standard of review” applied to it, has been denied. Thus ends a legal battle that began in August of 1995.

What does this ruling mean to Americans?

1. If you are in the military, it means that you and your attorneys have no right to present evidence in your defense in courts-martial, for evidence has suddenly become “discretionary element” of the prosecution. This means that, if the judge and the prosecutor want the jury to see your evidence, they will allow it, and if they don’t, they will deny it. And the bottom line on this issue is that no member of the Armed Forces can mount an effective legal defense. They will be denied due process, and the “standard of review” that has been recognized by all Appellate Courts for over 40 years has just been shredded. Lawyers will understand the legal chaos and confusion that has just been upheld.

2. If you are in the military, or considering enlisting, it also means that the Executive Branch now will feel completely at liberty to ignore the US Constitution, and place you in a United Nations uniform, under the command authority of a foreign officer, to pursue a military policy that is distinct from the legal and official policies of the United States of America. In effect, you may be turned into a mercenary at the discretion of the President. You are for sale, rent, hire, or loan, as determined by the political party of the moment, and you, or your children, may be ordered to fight, bleed and possibly die for the United Nations, without due process.

3. If you are a Member of Congress, or are represented there, it means that the Executive Branch may now send our soldiers into war, (under the UN), without bothering with little inconveniences like getting a Congressional Declaration of War. This, thanks to Presidential Decision Directive #25, which was touted as the legal basis of the order to send Michael New under the UN, in apparent contradiction of existing law and precedent. The balance of power between the branches of government, as intended by the Founding Fathers, has just been destroyed.

4. If you are a tinhorn petty dictator, posing no real threat to the United States, it means you no longer have to threaten the USA with words or action - that the President can send troops to invade you without a formal declaration of war.

There is more, but that’s enough to demonstrate that the USA has just experienced a figurative shifting of the tectonic plates of our very existence, and the USA is not what we have all been led to believe it is - our Constitutional Republic is no longer simply sick - it appears to be dead. If the President can force Americans to fight, without a declaration of war, under foreign powers, then the Republic no longer exists.

Other than that, it’s just another day. The grass will continue to grow, and the sun will continue to shine.

And what do we do now?

We’re thinking about that, and considering many options. This would be a very good time to give us your own thinking on the subject.

Thank you all, so much, for your support over the past decade.

Daniel New
Project Manager

Real Americans don’t wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/

This is a U.N.-free Zone
www.UN-freeZone.org/

Real Americans don’t wear U.N. blue!
www.MikeNew.com/

(Donations are not tax-deductible, but they sure will make you feel good! :c)


48 posted on 04/25/2007 2:28:56 PM PDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

No, I’m not comparing our soldiers to Nazi’s, I’m pointing out the absurdity of your view that there can be no valid reason for any American soldier to stand against an order that stands against his conscience and the Constitution. Such a soldier will have to weigh the risks of punishment and ostracism.

That being said, New had just better get on with his life as best as he can now; he was lucky not to have lost the better part of his youth in a Federal penitentiary!


49 posted on 04/26/2007 3:29:23 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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