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

Skip to comments.

Candidates in Mexico Signal a New Tack in the Drug War
New York Times ^ | June 10, 2012 | By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD and DAMIEN CAVE

Posted on 06/10/2012 11:42:40 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee

MEXICO CITY — The top three contenders for Mexico’s presidency have all promised a major shift in the country’s drug war strategy, placing a higher priority on reducing the violence in Mexico than on using arrests and seizures to block the flow of drugs to the United States.

____________________________snip___________________________

“Results will be measured not by how many criminals are captured, but by how stable and secure the communities are,” Ms. Vázquez Mota wrote on her campaign Web site.

Mr. López Obrador — whose security strategy is called “Abrazos, no balazos,” or “Hugs, not bullets” — has criticized how United States officials have approached securing Mexico. “They should send us cheap credit, not military helicopters,” he said. . .

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


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: cartels; drugwar; mexico; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd

1 posted on 06/10/2012 11:42:46 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

If Obrador wins then Mexico has gotten a stupid as us when we immaculated obozo.

He will immediately cut PRI-level deals with the narcos and will claim “success.”


2 posted on 06/11/2012 12:27:40 AM PDT by freedumb2003 ('RETRO' Abortions = performed on 84th trimester individuals who think killing babies is a "right.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Wow. So ... they plan on turning a blind eye as long as the violence shifts north of the border. Corrupt, backstabbing, lying, criminal conspirators running for President of Mexico. Must be a Monday.


3 posted on 06/11/2012 3:14:42 AM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

That’s what it souns like to me./

It would appear they will make a deal with drug lords to leave them alone if they stop the killing.


4 posted on 06/11/2012 3:19:44 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

“Hugs, not bullets”

Yeah, that’ll go over like a fart in church, when the AK47s are in full-auto at the fawning, unsuspecting crowds.

Didn’t we try something stupid like that once? “Hugs, Not Drugs”? How’d that work out for us here?


5 posted on 06/11/2012 3:25:50 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

running up the surrender flag on public media...


6 posted on 06/11/2012 4:50:12 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Legalize the damn stuff and end this insanity


7 posted on 06/11/2012 4:54:37 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spectre; truthkeeper; processing please hold; antceecee; navymom1; jaredt112; Edgerunner; ...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

Holder's Fast and Furious lies exposed by DOJ document leak

Jury sentences man (illegal alien) to 55 years for drunk driving crash that killed cop

Fireworks Over Fast and Furious

FLORIDA THUMBS NOSE AT DOJ; CLEANS VOTER ROLLS OF FELONS, ILLEGALS

Bobby Pulido, [famous Mexican-American] speaks out / goes against Obama (over gay marriage)

Critics of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s ‘Tent City’ Announce Protest, Then Chicken Out of Meeting

Holder Caught in More Lies About Fast and Furious

Issa on Fox News: What's Next For Fast & Furious?

Cops: Burned bodies found in Arizona SUV likely murder suicide, not drug violence

Illegal alien dies in desert, widow (also illegal) to sue Border Patrol

An immigrant in limbo between two Americas (BARF ALERT!)

(from 2008) Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections

Florida Halts Its Search for Violations of Voter Law

Texas GOP Oks more-lenient immigration platform

Aliens Don't Have to Live in State to Buy A Gun

Gun advocate: AG Holder has 'great deal to hide'

Eric Holder has become a litmus test for democrats

Where Police Don't Ask, and Immigrants Don't Tell

Democratic chairman tries to contain immigration scandal

Fast and Furious stonewall is working

ATF Death Watch 161: Attorney General Eric Holder Knows Nothing. WaPo and NYT Also(murdergate)

Rubio’s effort to reach Hispanics could backfire on Senate floor

Federal Project Seeks More for Immigrant Integration

Suspect in Seattle fatal hit and run of bicyclist is illegal alien

Axelrod, Holder give conflicting tales on whether Axelrod gave political advice to Holder

Attorney General Explains “Fast & Furious” Memos

2 Border Patrol Agents Accused Of Engaging In Sex Act During Cirque Du Soleil Show

New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Some Drain Cleaners

Eric Holder is Either Clueless or Dishonest. Take Your Pick. (lib groups ask for ID!)

8 posted on 06/11/2012 5:01:12 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Sounds to me like the pols have agreed among themselves to sell out to the highest bidder. And I can’t say I blame them because life has become so dangerous down there.


9 posted on 06/11/2012 6:42:09 AM PDT by exPBRrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Didn’t we try something stupid like that once? “Hugs, Not Drugs”?

Hugs Not Drugs is about parents educating their children against drugs (http://www.hugsnotdrugs.com/index.php/history); please explain the resemblance you see.

10 posted on 06/11/2012 8:46:43 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee; freedumb2003; Kellis91789; Venturer; bill1952
placing a higher priority on reducing the violence in Mexico than on using arrests and seizures to block the flow of drugs to the United States.

Why should Mexico endanger the lives of its citizens so that Americans can be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Americans disapprove? Would you support a policy of endangering the lives of U.S. citizens so that Mexicans could be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Mexicans disapprove?

11 posted on 06/11/2012 8:52:57 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Hugs, Not Drugs”
and
“Hugs, Not Bullets”

Resemblance? Pretty obvious idiocy, isn’t it? Or am I just *cynical*, after all those feel-good/do-nothing/spend-a-billion-$/no-results worthless programs?

The “Drugs” idiocy sure didn’t work, and the “Bullets” stupidity probably won’t, either. Someone forgot to tell the addicted kids and the drug dealers about the “Drugs” ad campaign, and they’ll forget to tell the narco-terrorists about the “Bullets” idiocy campaign, too. $10 says we can count on it.

Maybe I’m just jaded with liberal, feel-good stuff like that. My bad, I guess, JSNTN.


12 posted on 06/11/2012 9:14:24 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

It is stupid because it implies that parents have a choice between hugging their kids and giving them drugs. Not that many parents are inclined to give their kids drugs, and some of the best-loved kids end up on drugs. Kids really need discipline more than namby-pamby touchy-feely “be nice to them and they will do whatever you want.” That doesn’t work worth a damn.


13 posted on 06/11/2012 9:14:35 AM PDT by webheart (King of the Run-On Sentence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Didn’t we try something stupid like that once? “Hugs, Not Drugs”?

Hugs Not Drugs is about parents educating their children against drugs (http://www.hugsnotdrugs.com/index.php/history); please explain the resemblance you see.

“Hugs, Not Drugs”
and
“Hugs, Not Bullets”

Resemblance? Pretty obvious idiocy, isn’t it?

So that's all the resemblance you were implying?

Or am I just *cynical*, after all those feel-good/do-nothing/spend-a-billion-$/no-results worthless programs?

Please provide evidence that billions were spent on “Hugs, Not Drugs.” Based on the link I provided it appears to be a fully voluntary and privately-funded initiative.

The “Drugs” idiocy sure didn’t work

Not even among those who chose to participate?

14 posted on 06/11/2012 9:29:42 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: webheart
It is stupid because it implies that parents have a choice between hugging their kids and giving them drugs.

No, it implies that some kids turn to drugs to blot the pain of having had too little parental love - and that more of the latter can lead to less likelihood of the former. I don't know why any conservative would object to that (so long as its not presented as the silver bullet to end all drug use, which it never was as far as I know).

15 posted on 06/11/2012 9:33:51 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

The two things are tied inexorably to each other.

The Mexicans cannot stop the killing without stopping the drugs.

There are Billions of dollars going into Mexico from drug sales. I doubt seriously they really want to stop the drugs, and as long as there are rival dealers there will be killing.

Their Police Departments are a joke and their Military isn’t much better.


16 posted on 06/11/2012 9:48:25 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Add-up the “fully voluntary and privately-funded initiative costs”, if you can get a true accounting of it. Doubt you can. I’d bet the cost per ‘hugged’ child is astronomical. Not saying they weren’t worth it.

Read first 3 paragraphs of this article; then multiply by 1,000s:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19871006&id=PJszAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kY0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4752,1136910

Next, get some true, accurate drug-use stats - not just gov’t-doctored numbers to look good for public consumption - and it’ll be clear that drug-alcohol use is up. Way up.


17 posted on 06/11/2012 9:54:13 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
then multiply by 1,000s

Why?

drug-alcohol use is up. Way up.

I don't see where this program ever claimed it'd help anyone other than participants.

18 posted on 06/11/2012 9:58:36 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The Mexicans cannot stop the killing without stopping the drugs.

Says who? The USA stopped the alcohol-related killings of Prohibition exactly by recognizing that we couldn't stop the drug alcohol.

19 posted on 06/11/2012 10:00:59 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

So: Your point is that drugs should be legal. Don’t stop them , just make them legal.

Not a bad point it would solve the problem of those who are claen and sober having to look for a job, They could just get the jobs of the addicts.


20 posted on 06/11/2012 10:10:01 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Your point is that drugs should be legal. Don’t stop them , just make them legal.

History has proven that they can't be stopped - and that trying to stop them by making them illegal does more harm than good. The drug ban is exactly the sort of utopian feel-good policy for which conservatives criticize liberals.

21 posted on 06/11/2012 10:15:00 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Wasn’t it a NATIONAL program? That article’s just a Boca Raton piece. Again, multiply by 1,000s of locations needing facilities, materials, food, salaries etc etc etc.

*ALL COSTS* GO TO THE BOTTOM-LINE EXPENSE FOR THE PROGRAM. ALL COSTS, PRIVATE AND/OR PUBLIC.

It was publicly hailed as a ‘resounding success’, IINM, but it wasn’t, on a strictly cost/per accounting basis. None of those touchy-feely programs ever are.

I’m glad some were turned from drugs-alcohol abuse, and that they didn’t go thru that hell-on-earth nightmare that many others did. But it wasn’t the universal panacea it was hyped to have been.


22 posted on 06/11/2012 10:18:06 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Still don't see the resemblance to "Hugs not Bullets." But then, I'm not clear on who the latter program proposes to "hug," nor on how.
23 posted on 06/11/2012 10:31:12 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
[Legalize the damn stuff and end this insanity.]

I can support marijuana legalization under if:

1. All marijuana sold in the U.S. is grown in the U.S. by licensed farmers through a competitive bidding process.

2. Marijuana cigarettes (which might include filter tips) and other products are produced and packaged by licensed companies under federal and or state law and inspection.

3. Marijuana products are distributed and sold by licensed vendors with a commercial pipeline similar to tobacco and liquor.

4. The marijuana industry and its consumers are subject to taxes and fees at federal, state and local levels.

Though narcotics get the headlines, marijuana accounts for 60 percent of Mexican cartel exports into the U.S.

By legalizing and commercializing the U.S. marijuana market the criminal justice system could narrow its focus to more dangerous drugs. The production of bulk, untaxed marijuana by unlicensed growers would be treated as a tax violation the way moonshine whiskey is.

24 posted on 06/11/2012 11:20:45 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Hugs” for the murderous narco-terrorists? Instead of them using “bullets”? Yeah, that’ll work real well, if that’s the purpose. Not. If it’s for the many innocent people getting murdered, that’s not going to work well, either. Minor “details” of the program which are not clearly spelled-out.


25 posted on 06/11/2012 11:22:18 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
If Mexico didn't border the United States it would by now make Somalia look like DisneyLand. Mexicans are constitutionally incapable of governing themselves.
26 posted on 06/11/2012 11:59:41 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
If Mexico didn't border the United States it would by now make Somalia look like DisneyLand. Mexicans are constitutionally incapable of governing themselves.
27 posted on 06/11/2012 12:00:08 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

So by analogy, you’d be OK with American law enforcement turning a blind eye to toxic waste dumpers using the Rio Grande just as it flows into Mexico ?

As long as a few criminals in Mexico are making money cooperating with the dumpers, why should American law enforcement risk their lives trying to protect the vast majority of Mexicans who do not benefit but are only harmed by such dumping ?

No, I am not saying drugs are toxic waste. I am saying that being a good neighbor means respecting their laws and not helping your people circumvent those laws. Just like the pamphlets the Mexican government provides people advising them how to best illegally enter the US, the Mexican government is proving again it is not a good neighbor.


28 posted on 06/11/2012 3:40:19 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Would you support a policy of endangering the lives of U.S. citizens so that Mexicans could be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Mexicans disapprove?

LOL in fact ROTFL!

Kook - we have tons of laws making illegal the trafficking & transit of thousands of illegal substances, including but not limited to drugs, weapons, prostitutes, and sensitive information.

And police die rather often enforcing those very laws.

Put down the bong for a few weeks...

29 posted on 06/11/2012 6:37:49 PM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You are wrong , but why should I argue with you.

That would be a waste of time and effort.


30 posted on 06/11/2012 7:26:10 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
Next, get some true, accurate drug-use stats - not just gov’t-doctored numbers to look good for public consumption - and it’ll be clear that drug-alcohol use is up. Way up.

If so, it means that our national drug policy has been an epic failure.

Doesn't the Tenth Amendment mean that the states should decide intrastate drug policy - even if it means legalization of pot in some states?

31 posted on 06/11/2012 8:01:45 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
we have tons of laws making illegal the trafficking & transit of thousands of illegal substances, including but not limited to drugs, weapons, prostitutes, and sensitive information.

Congress has legitimate power to prohibit those items from entering the US because the Constitution delegates to it (Congress) the power to regulate foreign commerce.

Where do you believe the Constitution delegates to Congress the power to impose intrastate marijuana prohibition?

32 posted on 06/11/2012 8:43:14 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

The ‘War On Drugs’, like the pathetic and ultra-wasteful ‘War On Poverty’, are both total and abject failures. The Feds have usurped so much Constitutional authority from the States, it’ll be difficult if not impossible to get it back.

A thorough “Liberty Tree Refreshing” will be the only way.


33 posted on 06/12/2012 3:32:02 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs & most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
Why should Mexico endanger the lives of its citizens so that Americans can be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Americans disapprove? Would you support a policy of endangering the lives of U.S. citizens so that Mexicans could be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Mexicans disapprove?

So by analogy, you’d be OK with American law enforcement turning a blind eye to toxic waste dumpers using the Rio Grande just as it flows into Mexico ?

Poor analogy - a better one would be American law enforcement allowing toxic waste sellers to sell to Mexicans for ultimate personal consumption.

No, I am not saying drugs are toxic waste. I am saying that being a good neighbor means respecting their laws and not helping your people circumvent those laws.

Up to a point. But if the only demonstable effect of your neighbor's laws is to make the breaking of those laws so lucrative that your domestic criminals are better armed than your government, it may be time to say, "Sorry, neighbor, we won't pay for your bluenosery with our blood."

34 posted on 06/12/2012 8:54:50 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Would you support a policy of endangering the lives of U.S. citizens so that Mexicans could be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Mexicans disapprove?

LOL in fact ROTFL!

Kook - we have tons of laws making illegal the trafficking & transit of thousands of illegal substances, including but not limited to drugs, weapons, prostitutes, and sensitive information.

Sensitive information is a red herring - the reason we don't want those going to Mexicans is not that other Mexicans disapprove.

And police die rather often enforcing those very laws.

Pick that nit. Would you support a policy of endangering the lives of non-law-enforcement U.S. citizens so that Mexicans could be hampered from ingesting substances of which other Mexicans disapprove?

35 posted on 06/12/2012 9:00:19 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Your point is that drugs should be legal. Don’t stop them , just make them legal.

History has proven that they can't be stopped - and that trying to stop them by making them illegal does more harm than good. The drug ban is exactly the sort of utopian feel-good policy for which conservatives criticize liberals.

You are wrong , but why should I argue with you.

That would be a waste of time and effort.

<snicker> The fine print on the white flag of the drug warrior who has no rational response. (And in the end none of you do.)

36 posted on 06/12/2012 9:04:27 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“Poor analogy - a better one would be American law enforcement allowing toxic waste sellers to sell to Mexicans for ultimate personal consumption. “

That’s ridiculous. Whether the people in the target country want something for their own amusement or because they want to profit by accepting it is irrelevant. The relevant point is that people on both sides of the border stand to profit off something that a clear majority of the citizens in the target country have outlawed. Shipping toxic waste to Mexico without regard to the harm caused by the Mexican profiteers, and any Mexican laws against such disposal, is exactly analogous.

You are arguing about “personal consumption” of drugs, but that is not the issue. If drugs were legalized in the US, which I favor, then Mexico could do whatever they liked about the cartels because there would be little profit or motive for violence in the US drug trade. (I’d be more than happy to stop spending money trying to prevent people from destroying their own lives. That’s Darwinism and best to let that end of the gene pool kill itself off.) Until we get real about repealing Prohibition, however, making things easier for the cartels to operate in Mexico will increase the violence in the US since the cartels will have more resources to devote to their operations here.


37 posted on 06/12/2012 3:23:58 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
So by analogy, you’d be OK with American law enforcement turning a blind eye to toxic waste dumpers using the Rio Grande just as it flows into Mexico ?

Poor analogy - a better one would be American law enforcement allowing toxic waste sellers to sell to Mexicans for ultimate personal consumption.

That’s ridiculous. Whether the people in the target country want something for their own amusement or because they want to profit by accepting it is irrelevant.

That's not the distinction I'm making. I said "ultimate" personal consumption recognizing that there would also be middlemen making profits. The distinction is that, unlike toxic waste dumping, putting drugs in one's own body violates nobody else's rights.

The relevant point is that people on both sides of the border stand to profit off something that a clear majority of the citizens in the target country have outlawed. Shipping toxic waste to Mexico without regard to the harm caused by the Mexican profiteers, and any Mexican laws against such disposal, is exactly analogous.

As I said, past a certain point, it may be time to say to that clear majority of the citizens in the target country, "Sorry, neighbor, we won't pay for your bluenosery with our blood."

If drugs were legalized in the US, which I favor, then Mexico could do whatever they liked about the cartels because there would be little profit or motive for violence in the US drug trade. (I’d be more than happy to stop spending money trying to prevent people from destroying their own lives. That’s Darwinism and best to let that end of the gene pool kill itself off.)

Agreed.

Until we get real about repealing Prohibition, however, making things easier for the cartels to operate in Mexico will increase the violence in the US since the cartels will have more resources to devote to their operations here.

Possibly - but if Mexico decides it's not worth the price in their blood to enforce our laws, I think a better course than demanding their continued bloodshedding is for us to wise up about our laws.

38 posted on 06/13/2012 11:52:57 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | 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