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

Skip to comments.

Obama's Islamic-Center Stance: Why the GOP Shouldn't Run Against It (BS! The GOP should and will!)
Time ^ | 8/16/2010 | Mark Halperin

Posted on 08/16/2010 3:49:50 AM PDT by tobyhill

Dear Republican Party:

Your moment is now.

This weekend, President Obama defended the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque two short blocks from Ground Zero, despite cries of insensitivity from some New Yorkers and accusations of mischief from some pundits. This finally gives you an opportunity to add a powerful national-security cudgel to the message of economic woe you have been pushing as the midterm election approaches.

The political potency of the issue is obvious. Polls overwhelmingly show the President has put himself on the wrong side of public opinion. Opposition to the new facility arouses acute emotion and creates near total unity among relatives of 9/11 victims, first responders, Republican officeholders, potential 2012 presidential candidates, Tea Party members, the Fox News–talk radio–Drudge Report echo machine and many of the highly coveted swing and occasional voters whom you will need at the polls to win in November.

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; 911conquestmosque; 911victorymosque; bho44; bhofascism; bhoislamism; crushislam; democrats; dhimmicrats; elections; enemedia; groundzeromosque; halperin; islam; islamofacism; liberalmedia; markhalperin; msm; obama; obamagroundzero; obamedia; timemagazine; zerogroundzero
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 next last
To: princeofdarkness

Have the MSM just as suddenly stopped using “optics”?


101 posted on 08/16/2010 7:34:32 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“Something along the lines of what New York does within its borders is New York’s business. Add a couple of platitudes about how they understand how people can be upset about the current mosque plans and a few comments about how important 1st Amendment rights are for everyone and they’re home free.”

Sounds mealy mouthed. Enough rats will get it wrong that several seats in the house could move. Dems are terrified of this issue. Help them find their inner terror.


102 posted on 08/16/2010 7:37:12 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: drpix
Morton Halperins not only "advised" that Soviet conventional and nuclear military forces were only defensive, but also advocated unilateral U.S. disarmament.

Wasn't Morton Halperin investigated on orders of Henry Kissinger (then SecState) on suspicion of treason and/or espionage for the Soviets?

103 posted on 08/16/2010 7:38:09 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
That translates to "butt out" ...

Isn't that the essence of state's rights?

It doesn't get much more high-concept than what Obama is doing, and Republicans are right not to "leave it alone".

But it's not going to work in the 2010 elections because it won't be hard for local candidates to punt the issue and give a bland "I fully support 1st Amendment rights for all people, but the considerations of the local people should have been considered, blah, blah, blah" kind of answer. When ranked against the economy, unemployment, the deficit, and what have you this issue is way down in the list of people's priorities. And harping on this takes time away from things people really care about.

What more evidence do you want that they are right, than being told to back off by a TIME polemicist? TIME being the rag, by the way, that coined the term "Clinton hater".

Maybe it's reverse psychology?

104 posted on 08/16/2010 7:39:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

A. I wouldn’t run against it. There is no need to, as talk radio and Fox News will keep the issue alive. Let the anger against Obama fester. Let Obama’s stupidity pull down the Dims. In four weeks is the ninth anniversary of 9/11. This will stay in the news without the help of Republican candidates.

B. I do think we should force Dim candidates to make their position known on Cordoba House. Yes it is a local New York issue, but the President weighed in, so they should as well. Hemming and hawing will look as bad as answering the question.


105 posted on 08/16/2010 7:39:27 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thethirddegree

“Does anyone know why the Twin Towers have not yet been rebuilt?”

I understand they are still arguing about the size of the minarets.


106 posted on 08/16/2010 7:41:15 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Helter Skelter. The Revolution is Upon Us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And harping on this takes time away from things people really care about.

You assume people don't care about the American Experiment, or that Obama is committed to flushing it, and the country.

They care a lot about that, I think, but your commitment to "economic conservatism" and economic determinism is interesting. Very "Rockefeller Republican". It helps explain some other positions you've taken over the years.

107 posted on 08/16/2010 7:45:21 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

it doesn’t require any “harping on it” for a candidate to find an occasion to state a view (succinctly) on this matter and invite the opposing candidate(s) to “clarify” their view on the matter

I’m not saying it will be a lead issue in most races around the country, but it’s not irrelevant and it’s not correct (morally or politically) to regard the fate of Ground Zero as a purely local issue.


108 posted on 08/16/2010 7:45:25 AM PDT by Enchante ("The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." -- George Orwell --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised given the trash in the WH and the NYC mayor’s office.


109 posted on 08/16/2010 7:46:36 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz; thethirddegree
“Does anyone know why the Twin Towers have not yet been rebuilt?”

I understand they are still arguing about the size of the minarets.

Oooo! Good zing! lol ....

110 posted on 08/16/2010 7:47:21 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

“My question is what would be the legal foundation for preventing it? “

There isn’t. It is about the sensitivities from 9/11 and the fact that the Cordoba group won’t recognize those sensitivities. This isn’t about religion.


111 posted on 08/16/2010 7:49:48 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Helter Skelter. The Revolution is Upon Us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
"Wasn't Morton Halperin investigated on orders of Henry Kissinger (then SecState) on suspicion of treason and/or espionage for the Soviets?"

Here's what wikipedia's Morton Halperin entry has on that:

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969, after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.

The tapping of Halperin's phone was not revealed until 1973, when it came out in Ellsberg's trial. He sued Nixon and won a symbolic $5 judgment in 1977 for the offense.

Halperin, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) office in Washington, defended the right of the The Progressive magazine to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb.

The last paragraph reveals much about the "loyalties" of that ilk: While in the US government he pushed for American nuclear disarmament at any risk; Later, while in the ACLU, he fights to allow publication of instructions for construction of the bomb, for the rest of the world.
112 posted on 08/16/2010 7:58:27 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
You assume people don't care about the American Experiment, or that Obama is committed to flushing it, and the country.

I'm doubting that most people will look at the issue in the same apolcalyptic manner as you do. The GOP would get more mileage out of illegal immigration than what's happening in New York.

They care a lot about that, I think, but your commitment to "economic conservatism" and economic determinism is interesting. Very "Rockefeller Republican". It helps explain some other positions you've taken over the years.

Concern with core conservative economic values is "Rockefeller Republicanism?" Who knew?

113 posted on 08/16/2010 8:12:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
... the President knew that he and his party would almost certainly pay a political price for taking a stand, especially this close to the election, and with few prominent leaders, other than New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, on the White House's side.

But George Soros approves, and he cant ignore his most fervent money men. How obtuse of the writer not to acknowledge that!

114 posted on 08/16/2010 8:13:49 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Remember Mark Halperin:

(from Wikipedia)

In October 2004 the Drudge Report published a memo Halperin sent to ABC News staff about coverage of the U.S. presidential election directing them not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" and that both John Kerry and George W. Bush used "distortion" in their campaign, but that Kerry's distortions were not "central to his efforts to win." Halperin was criticized by conservatives who used the memo to reinforce long-standing complaints of media bias. ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider confirmed the authenticity of the memo but stressed Halperin’s fairness and objectivity."

115 posted on 08/16/2010 8:36:38 AM PDT by mathprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies; Daisyjane69

Daisyjane makes a good point about potential property right violations. That said, a case can be made that this building that’s being torn down is part of the battlefield because debris from one of the aircraft landed on it. If a building near a Civil War battlefield had shrapnel marks in it it would likely be considered part of the battlefield or at least a historic site.


116 posted on 08/16/2010 8:47:23 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
You know, the GOP doesn't really need to bother to come up with election strategies of its own anymore. The GOP simply needs to do the exact opposite of whatever the lame stream media is advocating for it to do.

(Oh, and didn't Time just get sold to some 91 year old senile billionaire who thinks the rotary dial telephone is the latest communication innovation? Oh wait, that was Newsweak! Well, in any case, the Newsweak sale has established the market value of leftest weekly propaganda rags. Wonder if Time-Warner would sell me "Time" for 99¢? It must be worth at least that if Newsweak is worth $1.00.)

117 posted on 08/16/2010 8:47:38 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the Right Stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Good point!


118 posted on 08/16/2010 8:48:41 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Only a moron would make it the core of their campaign, but it should not be off the table. ?This illustrates very clearly how liberals hear “Muslim” and process that word as “warm, fuzzy-wuzzy persecuted minority” and conservatives hear it and think, “decent Muslim or the sort of guy who thinks Hamas is cool?”


119 posted on 08/16/2010 8:50:32 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Good question.

It’s sad that people like Halperin really think there are people sitting around in the Muslim world thinking, “America is so wonderful...what? The Republican Party opposes a radical imam building a mosque at Ground Zero? Those evil bastards! I’m joining Al-Qaida!”


120 posted on 08/16/2010 8:54:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
It’s sad that people like Halperin really think there are people sitting around in the Muslim world thinking, “America is so wonderful...what? The Republican Party opposes a radical imam building a mosque at Ground Zero? Those evil bastards! I’m joining Al-Qaida!”

Soon we'll be hearing that 9/11 was simply a protest against American bigotry, and those of us protesting the mosque are proving the hijackers right.

I'd love to see how this guy would respond if some crazy person claiming to be a Christian killed a bunch of people at an abortion clinic, and a Catholic church was proposed for the area.

121 posted on 08/16/2010 8:59:00 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("Fanaticism is described as redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."-G. Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: maggief

In a sense. Liberal media types seem driven (I think it’s their authoritarian nature that compells them) to tell us exactly what they fear.


122 posted on 08/16/2010 8:59:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: paulycy; maggief

One word: Journolist.


123 posted on 08/16/2010 9:01:15 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

That column is just astoundingly well done, even for the masterful Krauthammer.


124 posted on 08/16/2010 9:07:30 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Plus, he’s referencing a movie that ends with a race riot.


125 posted on 08/16/2010 9:18:22 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: detritus

There is no Constitutional violation in opposing this mosque being built on this site. To suggest there is is to ignore nearly all the facts of the case.


126 posted on 08/16/2010 9:23:50 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Here's a SOLUTION!

Build a Bernie's chili dog restaurant at ground zero that has a "Mecca Burger" on the menu.

Big ribbon cutting ceremony with Congressman Nadler and Mayor BloomGoon.

Send in the CLOWNS! /s

127 posted on 08/16/2010 9:25:01 AM PDT by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
No one is disputing their “right to build

You haven't read many posts here. Plenty of people here are quite willing to violate first amendment and property rights to stop the builing. BTW, I believe that is Newt's position.

128 posted on 08/16/2010 9:27:01 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Time Magazine doing their best to emulate Newsweek.

May they have the same financial success!


129 posted on 08/16/2010 9:27:12 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Thanks!


130 posted on 08/16/2010 9:27:32 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Krauthammer used the example of building a German cultural center at Treblinka. Just because the vast majority of Germans hate Nazism doesn’t mean it’s a good to put it there, Put the same center in, say Gdansk and you have no problem.


131 posted on 08/16/2010 9:31:17 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor
I appreciate that you are being sarcastic. My opinion on the matter is - and this is being honest and up front -

There can be no mosque on that site! It is hallowed ground!

In fact, it was just mentioned on 'Rush' that the wheels of one of the planes landed on the roof of that building!

132 posted on 08/16/2010 9:34:17 AM PDT by airborne (Why is it we won't allow the Bible in school, but we will in prison? Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: airborne
There can be no mosque on that site! It is hallowed ground!

Some of us put more value on the "hallowed" rights of property and the first amendment. BTW, some of the folks here sound like my "sensitive" Nervous Nellie PC friends who want to prohibit anything that "offends" them such as smokers in public parks, the Confederate flag, etc.

133 posted on 08/16/2010 9:37:45 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Number of mosques in New York in early 90’s = “8 or 9”

Number of mosques in New York today = NINETY

28 in Queens, 27 in Brooklyn, nearly 20 in Manhattan and in the Bronx and at least 8 in Staten Island.

“But increasingly, various New York neighborhoods with large Muslim populations are latching onto mosque construction as a way of making Islam more visible and improving the neighborhood.”

Source:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-ArtCulture/ACELayout&cid=1158658279073


134 posted on 08/16/2010 9:38:59 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. --Chinatown, written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Only a moron would make it the core of their campaign, but it should not be off the table. ?

No, but the damage has been done by Obama's popping off last Friday night. He's tap-dancing like crazy and most Democrats are trying to distance themselves from his remarks. I just don't see a whole lot more that can be reaped from it.

135 posted on 08/16/2010 9:40:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"Plenty of people here are quite willing to violate first amendment and property rights to stop the builing."

Do you think Jefferson or any of the founders would have consider it a first amendment property right to construct a statue of King George next to the site of the Boston Massacre?

[ Don't repeat the John Adams leftwing myth! He defended the British soldier in the King's Court as an attorney admitted to the King's bar - 6 years before the Declaration of Independence. ]

136 posted on 08/16/2010 9:48:28 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

So, build a McDonalds on Little Round Top? Why not?

The only thing worse than nervous nellie PC morons is the sort of conservative who thinks any position other than “anything goes” is som,e sort of evil assault on the Constitution.


137 posted on 08/16/2010 9:51:14 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
So, build a McDonalds on Little Round Top? Why not?

If a private owner there is willing to sell, and no private covenants are violated, that is their right. Period.

138 posted on 08/16/2010 9:55:29 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I think Rush just quoted my post. :P


139 posted on 08/16/2010 9:58:00 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. --Chinatown, written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: drpix
Do you think Jefferson or any of the founders would have consider it a first amendment property right to construct a statue of King George next to the site of the Boston Massacre?

If there was a willing private seller, I think their answer would be "yes." In this respect, I have more respect and faith in the deeply-held pro-property rights principles of the founders than you do. To my knowledge, neither the Massachusetts nor U.S. constitution made (or makes) an "exception" for statues of King George.

140 posted on 08/16/2010 9:59:07 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

I suggest all the NYC Freeper’s take fido for a walk down to that building site for the morning and evening deuce drop.

A dog’s got to doo what a dog’s got to doo.

Oh, and be sure to bring some Fido treats. Mine really, really loves pork rinds! Throw some around for the other pups, too.


141 posted on 08/16/2010 10:05:07 AM PDT by Pigsley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I did a Google map search centered on the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor. I then searched the result for nearby Budhist Temples. I found many - but none closer than 1.5-2 miles away.

Think of it: You can say, that it was only followers of Shinto Buddhism and not all Shinto Buddhists that perpetrated that attack. You can say that non-Shinto Buddhists were also targets of Shinto-Budhist military attacks. You can say that was almost 70 years ago.

But even so, that sacred ground has been respected by all Buddhists for 70 years.

Peace requires respect but war does not. Muslim building the Ground Zero mosque because while their mouths say "PEACE" their thoughts and actions say "WAR."

142 posted on 08/16/2010 10:07:24 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: drpix
Peace requires respect but war does not.

Peace requires liberty, freedom of contract, and respect for private property. If those aren't first on your list, you have your priorities badly mixed up.

143 posted on 08/16/2010 10:10:32 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: drpix

Great points.

Muslims are demanding America treat it the way Muslims would never dream of treating Americans, and if we don’t fall for the trap, then “the terrorists win.”

It’s nice to see most Americans ain’t buying it.


144 posted on 08/16/2010 10:17:28 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown. --Chinatown, written by Robert Towne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Your faith has no basis. After the Revolution was won and the British army left, many Loyalists(knowledgable historians say close to 1/3 of the polpulation)remained behind. They held private property to the same extent as the triumphant rebels. And yet they had to flee to Canada to continue to express their loyalty. There was no ACLU to fight for their right to remain and build statues of the King - even on their own private property.


145 posted on 08/16/2010 10:18:07 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: drpix
After the Revolution was won and the British army left, many Loyalists(knowledgable historians say close to 1/3 of the polpulation)remained behind.

Certainly....but you didn't asked about those who took up arms agaisnt the U.S. during the period. Please inform me when, if ever, we passed similar laws depriving ALL Muslims of property rights and the first amendment?

146 posted on 08/16/2010 10:21:40 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

LOL! Well, the mosque is an act of war. So enjoy the strong property rights provisions and other freedoms you’ll experience under Sharia.


147 posted on 08/16/2010 10:27:42 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
My "Peace requires respect but war does not." is clearly concerning the relationship of two nations/people/religions.

Your "freedom of contract, and respect for private property" are domestic rights of individuals and their government and neither the forces or money behind that mosque are individuals or domestic.

If it makes it clearer, think of the forces of international Islam in America as today's version of the Nazi Bundts in the US before WWII.

148 posted on 08/16/2010 10:30:07 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
"...those who took up arms agaisnt the U.S. during the period."

The British fought with mercenary armies and Indian allies - not with armed civilian Loyalists. Civilain loyalists did not flee because they had taken up arms. They fled due the Loyalist opinions they maintained & dared not express and the mistrust others had of them.

149 posted on 08/16/2010 10:41:43 AM PDT by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: drpix
The British fought with mercenary armies and Indian allies - not with armed civilian Loyalists.

Um, yes they did. Read up on the battle of Kings Mountain sometime.

150 posted on 08/16/2010 12:05:53 PM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-153 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