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

Skip to comments.

Military’s top general offers grim outlook on nation’s defense
McClatchy DC ^ | 4 March 2014 | James Rosen

Posted on 03/05/2014 3:32:19 PM PST by SkyPilot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 next last
To: RFEngineer

Yes, that’s why I posted a chart with percentage change since 2011 in the title at the top of the chart, to mislead.


51 posted on 03/05/2014 6:05:57 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

Amen. It is horrific that the Pentagon’s focus was diverting millions to housing and health care benefits for “same sex” playthings while the rest of the force was manipulated like a kite. But that is the price we pay for very poor choices by the American voter.


52 posted on 03/05/2014 6:08:58 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“Yes, that’s why I posted a chart with percentage change since 2011 in the title at the top of the chart, to mislead.”

That’s exactly what that chart does - mislead. If you posted one of absolute budgets, it would look very different, it wouldn’t give the appearance of “we’ve got to catch up” that bureaucrats such as yourself like to portray.


53 posted on 03/05/2014 6:17:41 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Yes, everyone is "misleading" you.

It's a conspiracy, but we are not supposed to tell you.

China Significantly Boosts Military Spending

Russia Named World’s Third-Largest Military Spender

Obama's Bizarro World Budget For Fiscal 2015

54 posted on 03/05/2014 6:38:21 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yeah understand and its helpful for what you stated. But that’s a different analysis and has nothing to do with comparing our strength vs china.


55 posted on 03/05/2014 6:45:44 PM PST by plain talk (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

A lot of times it takes a war to determine how effective different weapons systems are and how well trained and led an army might be.


56 posted on 03/05/2014 6:49:25 PM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

With a smaller military maybe we’ll mind our own business. And hope like hell we don’t get attacked here. We’re broke yet going around bailing other countries out of their mess. Why is it always us that has to do something? Plus, I’m tired of Americans dieing in wars that they fight with at least one hand tied behind their backs.


57 posted on 03/05/2014 6:53:17 PM PST by VerySadAmerican (".....Barrack, and the horse Mohammed rode in on.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“Yes, everyone is “misleading” you.”

As you know charting percentage changes is designed to mislead the reader by depriving them of context from which to judge the overall picture.

It creates hysteria where there should be none.

The US military budget exceeds $600B. How much bigger does it need to be? $700B $1T?

I submit that $600B ought to be enough to fund our nations defense for a year. If it’s not enough, why not?

Will you give a straight answer, or will you post more pictures?


58 posted on 03/05/2014 6:55:31 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

It’s way past time for Europe, Israel, Japan and S. Korea to man up and defend themselves.


59 posted on 03/05/2014 7:05:40 PM PST by citizen (There is always free government cheese in the mouse trap.....https://twitter.com/kracker0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You have all the answers, you tell me. $100 billion? $0.5 billion? $300 billion. What’s that? Oh, it’s a pretty complex question? You bet it is. That is why we have budgets, hearings, and expert testimony. I’ll give you my opinion: DoD spending should never fall below 5% GDP.


60 posted on 03/05/2014 7:08:50 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Israel, Japan and S Korea are quite capable. We refused to sell them up to date fighters like the F22. They could have kept the line open and lower our overall cost plus serve as a buffer if anything jumps off in their region.


61 posted on 03/05/2014 7:10:19 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“You have all the answers, you tell me.”

I already did. $600B is enough.

So you just want to bitch about it, like a classic bureaucrat, you only know you want more, but you have no idea why.

So why post this thread at all if you have no idea?

“DoD spending should never fall below 5% GDP.”

You have no idea what you are talking about.


62 posted on 03/05/2014 7:21:42 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican
And hope like hell we don’t get attacked here.

I prefer the conservative policy of talk softly & carry a big stick rather than the leftist policy of nuance loudly and hope like hell.

63 posted on 03/05/2014 7:21:54 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Dempsey is more concerned about gay rights than operational effectiveness. He is an Obama toady.


64 posted on 03/05/2014 7:33:08 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
I already did. $600B is enough.

Oh really? What did you base that on? What is the correct force structure with that figure? Should the Army decrease down to 420,000? Should be go down to 11 carriers, or even 8? Or less?

Your $600B figure includes the OCO as well above the baseline. Should that go up, or down? How much? Is that figure just for this Fiscal Year, or is it through Sequestration for the next 9 years? What if world fuel prices go up? How does that affect the O&M costs? What if the Pentagon has to shift some fighters to the Baltics this week as the White House wants. How much does that cost in total, including the air refueling package?

None of that really matters to you: it is just "enough" because you are pissed off and arrogant. I get that.

I know you vastly dislike charts and graphs (all that "misleading don'tchaknow), but here is one to ponder with my answer of 5% GDP being a proper approach to our defense posture:

While you are at it, you might want to read this:

The Biggest Threat to the Pentagon’s Budget Is Entitlement Spending


65 posted on 03/05/2014 7:34:23 PM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

- brag loudly and keep a tiny putter in your Mom Jeans


66 posted on 03/05/2014 7:34:39 PM PST by devolve (- Tell Vladimir after my erection I have more FLEXIBILITY -- I need more SPACE - BHO Jr -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Right on. These money comparisons are useless. It is capability that counts and we are reducing ours while they are increasing theirs.


67 posted on 03/05/2014 7:37:02 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

I recall Dempsey calling a preacher who was threatening to burn the Koran and Dempsey pleading that he not do it because it endangered our troops. So much for free speech and freedom.


68 posted on 03/05/2014 7:41:10 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The one thing we can do is spend other countries into oblivion. Being the fiat currency gives us this ability. We are already 16 TRILLION in debt. As horrible as that is, let me ask this question:

What is the functional difference of being 16 trillion in debt or 17? Or 18 trillion? Is there one, other than the obvious?

Ideally, we’d cut the wasted spending to pay for defense but that doesn’t look likely to happen.


69 posted on 03/05/2014 7:49:56 PM PST by Personal Responsibility (I'd use the /S tag but is it really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
The baseline budget is much lower than $600 billion, The chart below breaks down the baseline costs and the Overseas Contingency Operations (Afghanistan and previously Iraq) costs. We should not be structuring our military on the basis of costs. First, we need to do a threat assessment based on current and potential foes, then develop the force to deal with it. Trade-offs will have to made in terms of costs and risks, but we should not try to start with a specific dollar figure and then develop a force based on that budget number.


70 posted on 03/05/2014 8:02:57 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: citizen
It’s way past time for Europe, Israel, Japan and S. Korea to man up and defend themselves.

Would you ask them to develop their own nuclear deterrent rather than depend on our nuclear umbrella?

71 posted on 03/05/2014 8:04:59 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of SVR4

” Republicans get voted back in en masse and fix lots of things and the country booms. “

This is the very reason that the best possible people for the job are no longer signing up; the smart ones see how it’s done and they don’t want to fix things, only to have all their work thrown back in their faces by ungrateful sh*ts like the brats that booed Bush after he was leaving in 2009.

“I have the satisfying thoughts that cities will crumble first, happy LIV suburbia’s next “

Yup; all those Obama voting soccer moms will no longer be able to feed their fat brats who are budding DemCrap voters. No more mounds of junk and no more farmers working like fiends only to be taxed to pay for the fashionable causes spouted off by those very suburban sows.


72 posted on 03/05/2014 8:10:58 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VerySadAmerican

Frankly I think a smaller military is a blessing; right now, we have a huge military with troops that aren’t as trained or treated as well as they should be. With a smaller and more specialized fighting force I am certain that we’ll be a lot better off.

Besides, we’re armed country and isn’t it better than most other countries with an unarmed populace.


73 posted on 03/05/2014 8:26:20 PM PST by CorporateStepsister (I am NOT going to force a man to make my dreams come true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“First, we need to do a threat assessment based on current and potential foes, then develop the force to deal with it. “

Thank you. Actually the step before that is more mission/doctrine. If we dispense with “Make country X a democracy” and stuff like that - focusing on actual threats to the United States and our direct interests you exclude a number threat scenarios.

We might be surprised at the number we got from this exercise.


74 posted on 03/05/2014 8:29:28 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
All I am saying to you is it is not a one-to-one comparison....

That is what is left out. The amount spent by China, etc. buys much more i am sure.

75 posted on 03/05/2014 8:30:18 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
what are getting for the $600 billion? If spending that much money represents pre WWII levels what are we paying for.

By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories. http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like

76 posted on 03/05/2014 8:34:23 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“because you are pissed off and arrogant.”

LOL....yes, I arrogantly want to keep my own money as much as is possible, just like the Constitution arrogantly states I should be able to.

I want to do it by reducing government dramatically.

Sure it’s not likely but arrogant? Spoken like a true government elitist worried about his budget.


77 posted on 03/05/2014 8:34:48 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

“I know you vastly dislike charts and graphs (all that “misleading don’tchaknow), but here is one to ponder with my answer of 5% GDP being a proper approach to our defense posture:”

Now plot absolute DoD budgets over the same timeline. Ah! it looks different!

That’s why you don’t use percentages on any meaningful chart.


78 posted on 03/05/2014 8:37:40 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; Defender2; ...

Active Duty ping.


79 posted on 03/05/2014 8:38:05 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
"I recall Dempsey calling a preacher who was threatening to burn the Koran and Dempsey pleading that he not do it because it endangered our troops."

Our troops are in danger more from the draconian ROE's imposed on them by this benighted regime than they are by some preacher burning a Koran. The jihadists are coming after us whether we beard them in their den or appease them. I prefer to beard them and pay the freight than to submit to dhimmitude and consign my descendants to lives in thralldom.



America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

80 posted on 03/05/2014 8:39:32 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Actually the step before that is more mission/doctrine. If we dispense with “Make country X a democracy” and stuff like that -

We have no such mission/doctrine. We do have treaty obligations--bilateral and multilateral.

81 posted on 03/05/2014 9:32:18 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories.

You need to define facility and base. The Base Structure Report (BSR) lists real property assets. These so-called bases are buildings and other real property.

Display Criteria : To qualify for individual entry in the BSR, a DoD site located in the United States must be larger than 10 acres AND have a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) greater than $10 million. If the site is located in a foreign country, it must be large r t han 10 acres OR have a PRV greater than $10 million to be shown as a separate entry. Sites that do not meet these criteria are aggregated as an “Other” location within each state or country. Since Army National Guard State sites tend to be smaller, the c riteria were adjusted so that sites larger than five acres AND have a PRV greater than $5 million are shown. Army National Guard sites not meeting this criteria are aggregated as “Other” for each state.

"The DoD manages a worldwide real property portfolio that spans all 50 states, seven U.S. territories, and 40 foreign countrie s. The majority of the foreign sites are located in Germany (179 sites), Japan (109 sites), and South Korea (83 sites).

82 posted on 03/05/2014 9:56:02 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: devolve
- brag loudly and keep a tiny putter in your Mom Jeans

ROTFLMAO!!!

83 posted on 03/05/2014 10:14:06 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Exactly. IMO, many countries will develop nuclear deterrents even if not presently threatened by nukes themselves, but by powerful “conventional” forces that are deterred by OUR conventional forces. It’s Pandora’s box...


84 posted on 03/05/2014 10:14:44 PM PST by Paul R. (Leftists desire to control everything; In the end they invariably control nothing worth a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
“Make country X a democracy”

Oh, good grief. Most times, that's just political fluff to convince some fence sitters. The fundamentals do not change.

85 posted on 03/05/2014 10:22:05 PM PST by Paul R. (Leftists desire to control everything; In the end they invariably control nothing worth a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

“The fundamentals do not change. “

They most certainly do. The fundamental concept of “Victory” was tossed out the window for Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can’t get much more fundamental than that.


86 posted on 03/05/2014 11:32:19 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“We have no such mission/doctrine. “

Of course we do. The Monroe Doctrine is one.

It’s the deployments that suffer a lack of mission/doctrine that really cost a lot of money.


87 posted on 03/05/2014 11:36:18 PM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
Have graphs for food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, housing subsidies, corporate bailouts/guaranteed loans, or benefits given to illegal aliens?

IMHO, it is one thing for granny to collect the SS she and/or grandpa paid into, another for Don' Juan Nojob to slip across the border and cash in.

88 posted on 03/06/2014 12:37:33 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Most of our platforms and equipment will be older, and our advantages in some domains will have eroded. Our loss of depth across the force could reduce our ability to intimidate opponents from escalating conflicts

We did not defeat the Germans in WWII because we had superior equipment or “platforms”. The Germans and the Japanese had excellent war equipment. We defeated them because we fought to win. We had leaders both Political and Military that made the hard decisions and did what was necessary to win. We do not have any leaders like that anymore...........


89 posted on 03/06/2014 1:55:49 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I go to sign up for the American Revolution 2014 and the Crusades 2014?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Have graphs for food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, housing subsidies, corporate bailouts/guaranteed loans, or benefits given to illegal aliens? IMHO, it is one thing for granny to collect the SS she and/or grandpa paid into, another for Don' Juan Nojob to slip across the border and cash in.

I absolutely agree. There are earned, and there are UNearned entitlements. Someone who paid their Social Security payroll taxes for 55 years is not akin to the Somali or Mexican illegal who has been here 4 months and is collecting from seven to ten welfare programs. Nearly $900 Billion a year spent on "poverty prevention" programs, and they are exploding under Obama.

90 posted on 03/06/2014 2:30:25 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Thanks. I was just responding to the question as to where the money goes. The world overall has been a safer place because of America, not as liberals would have it. But now it is being destroyed from within, effectively engaging in a war against God which is costing it greatly in souls and money, in addition to its status in the world.
91 posted on 03/06/2014 4:06:20 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot
I am thankful that I accepted Jesus Christ for my Lord and Savior. According to what I am understanding, this year starts Gods warning on the world with four blood red moons and we might just have a rapture of the Saints and could be soon.

I am looking for Jesus return and feel bad for those who don't want Jesus on the throne of their life. Their loss and our gain.

92 posted on 03/06/2014 4:56:22 AM PST by TEARUNNER14 (A drone is nothing compared to the EVIL MACHINE KILLER that is coming and being made right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Gonna get real interesting when Putin and the Gang of Chinese lay aside their age old differences and form the next big co-prosperity sphere.


93 posted on 03/06/2014 5:19:32 AM PST by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Would it help if we paid our soldiers in bitcoins?


94 posted on 03/06/2014 6:10:20 AM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

95 posted on 03/06/2014 6:47:41 AM PST by LucyT (If you're NOT paranoid, you don't know what's going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

That’s budget growth. Let’s wring out the waste in our military. We’re being played by the MI Complex.


96 posted on 03/06/2014 7:01:13 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer
Of course we do. The Monroe Doctrine is one.

LOL. I think you need to get better informed about the Monroe Doctrine.

We do have basic foreign policy principles as embodied in the Department of State's Mission statement

Mission Statement

Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

American diplomacy in the 21st century is based on fundamental beliefs: our freedom is best protected by ensuring that others are free; our prosperity depends on the prosperity of others; and our security relies on a global effort to secure the rights of all. The history of the American people is the chronicle of our efforts to live up to our ideals. In this moment in history, we recognize that the United States has an immense responsibility to use its power constructively to advance security, democracy, and prosperity around the globe. We will pursue these interests and remain faithful to our beliefs.

Globalization is compressing distances and creating new opportunities for economic growth. It is expanding the exchange of ideas, providing an impetus for political freedoms. Millions of the world's poor, however, have not yet benefited from globalization, increasing their risk of alienation. Furthermore, transnational threats have emerged from globalization, enabling the creation of deadly global terror networks, spurring crime that reaches beyond borders, and spreading disease via the most mobile population in history. The spread of unconventional weapon technology risks giving tyrants and terrorists unprecedented power to harm the United States, our allies, and our friends. At the same time, famines and civil conflicts have erupted in countries steeped in poverty or constrained by autocratic rulers, creating waves of refugees and swelling the ranks of internally displaced populations. Traditional conflicts between and within states harm the innocent, with regional instabilities transmitting shock waves throughout our interconnected world.

In the coming years, the principal aims of the Department of State and USAID are clear. These aims are anchored in the President's National Security Strategy and its three underlying and interdependent components - diplomacy, development, and defense.

First, we will strive to build and maintain strong bilateral and multilateral relationships in pursuit of our mission. There is the prospect for a durable peace among the great powers based on alignment against common threats. We will strive to strengthen traditional alliances and build new relationships to achieve a peace that brings security, but when necessary, we will act alone to face the challenges, provide assistance, and seize the opportunities of this era. U.S. leadership is essential for promoting this vision, but others must share the responsibility. The history of American foreign policy suggests that we will increase our chances of success abroad by exerting principled leadership while seeking to work with others to achieve our goals.

Second, we must protect our nation, our allies, and our friends against the transnational dangers and enduring threats arising from tyranny, poverty, and disease. Global terrorism, international crime, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are new challenges born of traditional ambitions. Urban and rural poverty reflects the failure of statist policies, an absence of the rule of law, and poor governance. Radical ideologies are nurtured in societies deprived of the legitimate means of dissent, free markets, economic opportunity, and the free flow of ideas. A world in which half of humanity lives on less than $2 per day is neither just nor stable. HIV/AIDS is not simply a health issue. This pandemic is destroying precious lives, undermining economies, and threatening to destabilize entire regions. Environmental degradation and deforestation threaten human health and sustainable development. Confronting these threats effectively is beyond the means of any one country, and calls for principled American leadership aimed at achieving effective coalitions that magnify our efforts to respond to these critical challenges.

Third, in confronting the intersection of traditional and transnational challenges, we will combine our diplomatic skills and development assistance to act boldly to foster a more democratic and prosperous world integrated into the global economy. We will not waver in our belief that all human beings deserve lives of dignity and the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We will promote freedom of speech, conscience, and religion, the rule of law, and economic freedom. In concert with civil society organizations, we will speak out against human rights abuses and the trafficking of human beings.

97 posted on 03/06/2014 7:23:33 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of SVR4

Amen. America the stupid. Americans are not going to vote for defense if it means cutting all those free checks while abled bodied men sit on their collective butts at home watching reality TV, smoking dope, drinking booze, etc. They want free stuff. Screw he rest of the world. We stay home. I get my free checks. Protect Israel???? Are you crazy??? I need my free check to buy my drugs. Yup. That is what Amerika wants. Land of the Free has gone to “the Land of Sit on Butt Lazy.”


98 posted on 03/06/2014 7:23:47 AM PST by RetiredArmy (MARANATHA, MARANATHA, Come quickly LORD Jesus!!! Father send thy Son!! Its Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Right, right, right!


99 posted on 03/06/2014 8:28:41 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Immigration Reform is job NONE. It isn't even the leading issue with Hipanics. Enforce our laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

bttt


100 posted on 03/06/2014 9:37:58 AM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-124 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