The Free State Project: A Project for Idaho

What is a "free state"? Whatever a free state is, it's certainly not being served and protected by regimes posing as constitutionally authorized state and federal governments. Our current government has all the trappings of a police state; they are managed through emergency proclamations, executive orders, bureaucratic mandates and judicial fiat. We are further whipped into a frenzy by the propagandists of terror who have been given unconscionable and unconstitutional license by the corporately purchased buffoons in the legislative branch. Our nation no longer bears any real resemblance to the government our founders intended.

From any direction you look at it, ethically, constitutionally, economically or politically, the regimes posing as our state and federal governments are bankrupt. A “free state?” Not hardly.

Many people talk about freedom, but few individuals try to do something about it. Regime change now has become a popular concept, but how? Anyone who has tried to organize even a local group to promote freedom issues will understand the impossible task of weaning 280 million American souls off the nipples of socialism and moving them toward liberty. The federal reptile with its countless bureaucratic tentacles, gnashing law enforcement fangs and seemingly limitless mammary secretions is just too much beast to tangle with.

So start small. Just such a “Free State Project” has already begun. Conceived in July of 2001 and organized by September, the Free State Project (FSP) already has over 1400 committed members. Under the motto of “Liberty in our Lifetime” and under the seal of the green porcupine, the FSP is for people who, “don't want to wait decades for most citizens in the U. S. to realize the nanny state is an insult to their dignity.”

“The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U. S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates and, finally, negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world.”

A stellar idea, but what are the plans to accomplish this? Once the membership reaches 5,000, the state will be chosen and that is where the free-staters will move. The FSP is doing extensive research on all the candidate states. Many criteria are being considered with 10 states in the running: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Wyoming.

States with a population of approximately 1.2 million or less are being considered as viable locations for 20,000 liberty activists to infiltrate existing government and create a free state. The FSP's numbers are based on history and a statistical analysis of other independent party politics, such as the Parti Quebecois (PQ). The PQ began in 1967 as a coalition 3rd party that was formed from dissident Liberal Party members and smaller pro-independence parties. With only one out of every 62 citizens paid PQ party members, the PQ achieved a parliamentary majority nine years after it formed.

The FSP is specifically not affiliated with any political party, but rather a coalition of “libertarians, classical liberals, constitutionalists and others who believe that, at a maximum, the role of civil government should be the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty and property.”

The FSP welcomes any liberty-oriented people. The FSP has adopted the porcupine as its “don't-tread-on-me” mascot.

The primary goal is to first achieve a majority in the legislature and then work towards filling the other branches of government. Just as many formerly “democratic” politicians in Idaho have infiltrated and became “republicans” to join with the party in power, FSP members can infiltrate the two dominant parties and take them over or support the various 3rd parties and raise them to greater political standing. Are there 20,000 republican and democratic activists in Idaho now? Imagine what 20,000 FSP members, dedicated to liberty, could do to the dominant parties at the local and state level.

Other considerations for a state where a free economy and society will be viable include the current funding levels of the republican and democratic parties; the native political culture and its orientation towards liberty; the economic freedom index; gun control and home schooling laws. A state with a coastline and ports or a border with Canada are considered more viable for “free-market policies” than landlocked states. There is even a criteria for the “lazy” factor -- the percentage of the population that is employed by federal, state and local governments.

And there is a many-faceted consideration generally falling under the term “quality of life.” Climate, projected jobs growth, crime rates, per capita income relative to the cost of living, and population density are given a more subjective evaluation.

The amount of federal land ownership in a state is being considered for both positive and negative factors. “More federal land ownership might mean an excuse for federal meddling in the state, but it could also mean a legitimate grievance for the state's citizens.”

Federal dependence, particularly whether a state receives more or less federal funding than it pays in federal taxes, is also factor being given important consideration. States that get more federal handouts than they pay for are likely to be harder to wean from federal socialism.

The federal government claims to own two-thirds of Idaho and there are considerable grounds for Idaho citizens to have a legitimate grievance. Especially when history, the current lethargic federal management schemes and the constitutional facts of life are considered. The federal Constitution prohibits the federal government from owning any lands within a state except for certain military purposes and other needful buildings. The Idaho Constitution conveyed all property of the Idaho territory to the new state upon admission to the union. But unconstitutional Presidential Proclamations usurped much of the Idaho public lands soon after it became a state (see The Big Lie, http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010802.htm)

Why doesn't Idaho resume management of the public lands fraudulently held by the federal government? Because the current political powers in Idaho don't want to rock the boat and risk losing their federal handouts. What would be the result if Free State activists assumed a majority position in state government and chose to give up all the federal handouts (which they plan to do anyway) and reassumed the two-thirds of Idaho that was unconstitutionally “taken?”

One criteria that appears to be missing from the FSP's evaluation of the states is resources. Especially natural ones. How can a state be independent and self reliant without the means to do so? The resource oversight is understandable, since many of the FSP's founders are from the eastern states, where resources are more likely to be acquired in commerce than by development.

The relative qualities and quantities of each prospective state's resources appears to have escaped the FSP's consideration. The western states typically have a much greater quantity and diversity of resources than the eastern states and have populations of people who know what to do with them.

The Free Staters, or porcupines as they call themselves, will eventually have an election to choose a state. Instead of the conventional one person, one vote election, the FSP will give each member 10 votes to cast all for one state or divide among several different states. The current poll on the FSP's web site gives the following results:

New Hampshire 26%; Montana 14%; Wyoming 11%; Delaware 10%; Maine 8%; Alaska 8%; Idaho 8%; Vermont 6%; North Dakota 3%; South Dakota 25%.

FSP members will vote for a state when there are 5,000 FSP members and within three years from the beginning of the project or the effort will disband.

Idaho is already under consideration to become the Free State. Under various criteria and popular choice, Idaho falls somewhere near the middle of the pack under most criteria. Idaho has more diverse opportunities than most of the other states in contention. Idaho has moderate climates, a pre-existing “liberty” culture, varied geography and economic opportunities and a quality of life that can be enjoyed from remote wilderness settings to modern, urban environments.

Formerly known as the gem state, Idaho has abundant gems, precious and industrial metals and minerals. Mining was one of the first post-European settlement activities.

Many of Idaho's native peoples have established tribal gaming enterprises. The proceeds enhance their tribal interests and provide additional revenue for schools and other infrastructures. Idaho native populations might be naturally inclined to support the FSP.

Agriculture is common throughout Idaho and is a major component of the Idaho economy.

Idaho has supplied a wide variety of forest products for well over a century. We also have wilderness areas nearly the size of New Hampshire and other forest lands. With 20,000 activists to help wean us from federal hand-outs and work to reassume ownership of Idaho's federally-occupied public lands, prospects could be good for Idahoans. An accountable state government and the teeth of our current State Constitution's corporations article, could provide excellent management of our public lands while preventing some of the past corporate abuses of Idaho's resources.

Recreation has become dominant in many areas that were formerly timber and mining areas. White-water rafting, skiing, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, boating and hiking are now major parts of the Idaho economy and common Idaho pastimes.

Idaho, especially once you step out of the Boise beltway (where the socialists in office “work” and play), is one of America's few remaining liberty cultures. Those who have been here a generation or more are likely to have come from that independent pioneer stock. More recent migrations have seen many who wanted to get away from the big city only to bring it all with them. So Idaho now has a mix of urban/suburban comfortable living and rugged, rural lifestyle opportunities.

Politically, Idaho has been dominated by Republicans for years. There are many reasons for this. Generally, Idaho is an independent, conservative and individualistic society. Traditionally north Idaho is the main refuge for Democrats. Those Democrats, however, tend to behave somewhat like Republicans. On the other hand, many “Democrats” joined the Republican party some time ago so they could get elected. So some of our Republicans tend to behave like Democrats.

The libertarians of Northern Idaho fielded more candidates this year than the Democrats did and several have a decent chance of winning, especially after the legislature overturned the people's initiative for term limits last year. Incumbents who voted to repeal term limits may get the boot.

Given the weak standing of the nearly DOA Democratic party, it would not take a monumental effort for the Libertarians to become the second most powerful party. That would provide the opportunity to inject Libertarian issues into the Idaho political debate. Most Idahoans are unfamiliar with the Libertarian platform. There are a lot of Libertarians in Idaho that just don't know it yet. The Constitution party has also made a good showing this year, with good potential for improvement.

If the FSP moves to Idaho, a “Liberty Party” or coalition of Libertarians, Constitution Party members and free-thinking Republicans could be put together to develop some in-state political clout and challenge Idaho's Republican guard.

Twenty-thousand liberty activists could go a long way in Idaho. Idaho uses the caucus system. In some of the smaller counties, it is not inconceivable for 10 or 20 “activists” to show up at either the Republican or Democratic caucus,' take over, run their own candidates, and knock incumbents and conventional candidates down to write-in status.

An unintended result of so many activists moving to a state with a liberty agenda would be the eventual exodus-out of dyed-in-the wool socialists. Those who want to get their good life from the taxes of others will have to move to greener pastures once the “bennies” dry up.

The wheels of socialism have been turning in Idaho like anywhere else in modern America. There will be resistance from the “there-otta-be-a-law” politicians currently in power. And the hordes of agency employees will not go away with out a fight.

Guns are a traditional component of Idaho culture. Concealed carry permits are easy to get as long as you provide fingerprints and pass a federal background check. Only convicted felons, drug addicts and the mentally infirm can be denied a concealed carry permit in Idaho. Permit holders are excluded from the federal waiting period and background checks for gun purchases. State law allows concealed carry without a permit when you are not in a vehicle or an incorporated town.

Home schooling is common in Idaho with some reasonable cooperation between public schools and home schoolers on some extra-curricular activities. Many home schoolers teach their children completely without government involvement. Charter schools began a few years ago in Idaho, in what is essentially a state-funded private school program. Time will tell how “private” charter schools can remain on public funds.

Idaho has a wide variety of climates, terrain and regions. Central Idaho is largely rugged wilderness and mountains that separate the other regions of Idaho. Mostly small towns and rural settings dominate central Idaho. Climate varies with the elevation from high country covered with snow until July, to river bottoms and canyons that provide good gardening opportunities.

Northern Idaho is a mix of mountains, valleys and prairies. Warm summers and moderate winters are common at the lower elevations. Climate is influenced more often by coastal weather than the central prairies. Couer d'Alene is the major city in North Idaho, which is dotted with many medium to smaller towns.

Southwestern Idaho contains the majority of Idaho's population and its political, economic and industrial base. The Treasure Valley around the greater Boise area has a climate with hot summers and moderate winters. Urban and suburban development along the Snake River is surrounded by active agricultural production.

Eastern Idaho is a mix of high desert, mountains and agriculturally developed prairies. Several eastern cities provide urban living opportunities, with many medium to small communities scattered across the mostly open terrain.

Idaho provides a vast array of rural living opportunities. High mountains, river valleys and canyons, the southern and eastern desert areas, the prairies and plains, offer many diverse relocation choices for the “porcupines” of the FSP.

Idaho ranks number one on the FSP's projected jobs growth analysis and their economic freedom index. Contrary to the FSP's listing, Idaho does have a port in Lewiston where many commercial products are barged up and down the Snake and Columbia Rivers. Rail service is available throughout Idaho. Idaho shares a short border with Canada.

Consider the alternatives. If you're going to live somewhere, climate is important. It's easy to theorize about the relative importance of climate from an office in Florida or a house in California. How many FSP porcupines want to hole up in Wyoming or the Dakotas for a high-plains winter? How many would be able to brave a harsh Alaskan winter and still be there in the spring? FSP meetings may not be all that well attended come February.

If you want to attract a following it needs to be attractive for the long haul. A free state is not a one-year project. A cool but not too cold Idaho canyon like the Clearwater, the Snake or the Salmon might be more preferable in January than say, Bismarck, North Dakota.

And just what is the resource base of say, New Hampshire? How do free-staters plan to build a free-market export economy? Maple Syrup and hardwood flooring? Idaho already has diverse and productive resources in greater quantity than all the eastern state candidates combined. It also has the best economic prognosis according to the FSP's own data.

The federal Constitution only authorizes federal ownership of lands within a state for four specific types of military purposes and other needful buildings. Once this fact becomes more widely known, and the federal usurpation of two-thirds of Idaho is properly challenged by 20,000 porcupines (and a few more locals), we can “finally negotiate directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy.” That's a lot of Idaho to build a free state with.

The political climate of Idaho is ripe for positive change. The republican majority in the legislature has upset much of the electorate by repealing a thrice passed term limits law. The democrats are nearly DOA, and have been for years. The libertarians have made record progress and the Constitution Party is alive and well. That doesn't mean there aren't also a lot of lawyers, lobbyists and socialists, eager to maintain business as usual.

Let's get real. How many liberty-loving westerners would actually cross the Mississippi and live? Easterners may like it there, but I don't think too many westerners could call it home -- even if we were the government. I've never been there, but I'll bet “rural” Vermont looks a lot more like “suburban” Idaho with deciduous trees. Size matters. And population density too.

Easterners and westerners are two different breeds of people. Are there only 20,000 liberty-oriented activists left in America? Eastern porcupines would certainly be welcome out west, but what about a free state east and a free state west? We could alternate our annual free state convention and compare notes.

In all fairness there are a lot of good things that can be said about Montana as a choice for the FSP. Wyoming? Nevada? Maybe. But Idaho, formerly known as the gem state, Idaho and its famous potatoes legislature pushing to be known as the “tolerance” state, would make a great free state. I like it already, Idaho, “The Free State.”

Note to Marylanders: Maryland has been known as "The Free State" since the nineteen twenties, when Baltimore Sun editor Hamilton Owens proposed seceding from the federal union rather than going along with Prohibition.

Things change however, and from here in the Western States Maryland looks like nothing more than an appendage of the District of Columbia: bedroom communities and office parks supporting federal leechism.

Should Maryland still be called "The Free State" or should the mantle pass to another displaying the appropriate fruits?

Idahoans and other porcupine types can register their vote in the FSP's poll at:

we defend indentured servitude

Sorry, it was outlawed along with the other forms of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment.

The Thirteenth Amendment hardly outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude. It just made them government monopolies.

Amendment XII:

Section I: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section II: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appreopriate legislation.

Note that slavery, *as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, remains legal in the United States...if the government does it.

-archy-/-

Well, I will say this much: if you concentrate all 20,000 in one Congressional district, you won't be blamed for throwing the district to the GOP.

Very possibly. Interestingly, Wyoming is a possible *goal state* choice, a state that sends two senators to congress, but only one representative. Even I can remember that my congressman represents the First Congressional District when there's only one.... I'll even put him on my Christmas card list. [Well, actually *her*: Republican Barbara Cubin holds the seat at present, and I don't think she has too much to worry about from a challenger, though when she steps down, her replacement may face a challenge.]

And don't expect the locals in a thinly-populated area to greet 20,000 outsiders with hosannas and hymns of thanksgiving.

Some will view them somewhere between a plague of locusts and an outbreak of political rabies, I'm sure. But there will likely also be a few businessmen and merchants who might see 20,000- or more- new customers as their potential salvation.

-archy-/-

HST, I like the idea of 50 FRee States.

Oddly, so did the Founders....

Uh, I believe that in their time, they were actually proponents of thirteen free states. But they certainly had high hopes for the political adventure upon which they were embarking, and the Constitution they eventually adopted contained the provisions that made the addition of more states than they'd originally gathered a possibility.

They were, indeed, farsighted. I do not intend to stand by and do nothing and watch as the gifts they presented us are devoured by insects or diluted to nothinglessness.

-archy-/-

Like I said, there's good free-market reasons for low-population states to have low populations.

Sure, but varying demographics can alter those reasons, and technology advances can cure some of the limitations. Lawrence of Arabia said that it wasn't machineguns or mortars that made the Arab Revolt against the Turks and their German masters feasable, but the availability of tinned beef, giving the tribesmen the opportunity to wage war without having to forage for rations. Amateurs and junior officers study strategy and tactics, successful generals and professionals sweat the logistics....

Still, you'd think the sharpie native Paiute or Goshute who first noticed the Mormons a-coming to the Salt Lake area could have done real well for himself with a couple of lemonade stands along their route....

I predict there'll be a couple of Home Depot managers somewhere who'll have their year-end figures looking a LOT better than they'd envisioned before too awfully long....<p. -archy-/-

Sure, but varying demographics can alter those reasons, and technology advances can cure some of the limitations.

If you're talking demographics, your timescale just jumped to generations, and that might have its own problem, as I will discuss below.

As for technology: can it cure enough of the limitations?

One thing I have noticed--maybe it's an anomaly and you can correct me on this--is that there is one event that turns libertarians into mere conservative Republicans, and that's becoming a parent. In short, every active libertarian I know has ZERO minor children.

Where does the next generation of libertarians come from? Most libertarians I know became such due to exposure to YAFF in colege--they usually don't have libertarian parents.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another...

I'm sure Jefferson did not intend that to mean laws such as mandatory seatbelt wearing and drunk driving laws (obviously those things did not exist back then, but I'm referring to laws of that type). For, taken to its logical conclusion, liberty could be entirely regulated out of society in the name of prevention. In other words, if you're drunk and accidentally stab me with a pitchfork, you'll likely be convicted of involuntary manslaughter--but there is currently no law forbidding such an action, nor should there be. The same principle works in the cases you've mentioned: the law proscribing punishment for the resulting act is sufficient.

Please help me gain an accurate perception of that time and incident.

The genesis of the reports of *Bush being AWOL* are from a May 2000 Boston Globe newspaper account by Walter Robinson, though it should be noted that the *Glob* is no friend to Republicans in general nor to Bush in particular, and the piece as a pre-election revelation run six months before the election, long enough for follow-up stories from other sympathetic sources, but not long enough for any likely successful court challenge for libel to be mounted.

The gist is, that while a Texas Air Guard pilot and officer, Bush requested duty with an Alabama unit while he had relocated to that state while working on a political campaign for one of his father's friends there. The question is whether he ever attended Alabama Air Guard training sessions as ordered, was given a verbal or other authorization to miss some sessions. By August 1972, Bush's flight physical had expired, as did shortly thereafter that of his longtime friend and later business partner James Bath, who would go on to develop Houston-area SPX Airport with Saudi financeer Salem Bin-Laden, brother of Osama, later killed in an aircraft accident. Bush was a First Lieutenant at the time.

So far as I'm aware, Bush never flew as a military pilot after that time, nor do I know if he's rated as a private civilian pilot, though I'd expect he's gotten at least a little right-hand seat time in smaller aircraft during campaign hops and during flights as Texas governor.

Most of the claims about *Bush being AWOL* are stretched pretty thin for partisan political purposes, but Bush could have answered them by releasing copies of his records but has yet to do so. Likewise, though there are several thousand dollars offered [2K$ in Texas and 1,000 in Alabama, IIRC] for any photo or documentary proof of Bush performing his duties in Alabama or later in Texas following that reassignment and return to Texas NG control in his last days as a guardsman, noone's stepped forward to claim it yet.

You asked why we couldn't act the way the Left did when it gained power? They had an advantage that we don't: once they gained power, they didn't have to switch "back" to being honest. They had the luxury of acting the same way in their pursuit of power, as they act when they have power. If you were to assemble an organization that uses dishonesty and perfidy as its main strategy, you'll necessarily have to attract dishonest and perfidious types in order to pull it off. What are you going to do with them when the Left is defeated? Say "Thanks, you're dismissed" and expect them to go quietly home?

Our only real weapon is the truth. It can be a powerful one, if we allow it to do its job.

Where does the next generation of libertarians come from? Most libertarians I know became such due to exposure to YAFF in college--they usually don't have libertarian parents.

Interesting. I don't consider myself a L/libertarian, so can't at all offer my own 18-year-old kid as an exception to any lack of future generations of those inclined. Most of the generally young libbies I've exchanged thoughts with over the FSP are first or second hitch military personnel, not a real great climate for having kids without some serious reflections on both family priorities and military career/s impact, so I don't expect they're particularly good examples either. You reckon the kids of Libbies will rebel by becoming liberal socialists?

But it wasn't YAFF, the Ayn Rand Discussion Club or other college influences that got my interest in the possibility that there was more to libertarians than doctrinal theorization. My late pal Mark Penman, a FReeper who wrote as laissezfirearm traded multiple e-mails with me, and caught my attention with his thoughts on the theory, if less so with examples of such thought in action.

Mark committed suicide in the Summer of 2001, and I miss him still. I'd dearly love to know his thoughts on the FSP had he been around to consider the idea, and I'd dearly have loved to have had him as a neighbor.

But if a new town or community emerges in that hoped-for experiment, and they're looking for a good name for it, my suggestion will be *Penman.* He had offered something pretty close to the FSP idea back in 1994, and whether a case of others swiping his good idea or great minds thinking alike, I wish he was along for the ride to see how it panned out.

No kids left along the way he travelled, so far as I know. He liked the ladies, but the one to complement his days never happened his way, it seems.

But perhaps he's found her now.

-archy-/-

I'm sure Jefferson did not intend that to mean laws such as...

And therein lies the rub. How do you know what Jefferson intended or didn't intend with that statement? I'm sure Jefferson did intend to mean laws such of this type were part and parcel of good government. The fact is you don't know with any greater certainty than I do, or anyone else does, for that matter. You're not any more privy to what Jefferson would have thought about modern laws than anyone else. You, just like me, are perfectly free to believe what you'd like about Jefferson intended to mean--and my belief counts equally as yours. I said before that divining the intent of the Founding Fathers is dangerous for the Libertarian, and it is the very heart of my disagreement with the Libertarians. You don't know how any of the Founding Fathers would have felt about many of our modern laws--the best anyone can do is guess. Some guesses are more educated than others, but even an educated guess is not a certainty, but Libertarians, more than others (at least here on FR) try to pass their guesses off as concrete fact, and they aren't. You haven't cornered the market on the Constitution, no matter how much you try to convince everyone you have. The best any of us can do is say, "This is the belief that I'm going to act on. This is what I believe is the best way to do things."

I agree that, taken to its logical conclusion, just about everything could be a crime in the name of safety. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We do need some laws for specific actions, especially when the unique circumstances (i.e. driving a motor vehicle) may reasonably require a different burden of proof, than say, for example, the "generic" brand of the same type of crime. Thankfully, the back and forth tension between, say, your position and the left's position is great enough that it will never go all the way one way or another, because society is never all one way or another on any subject. Never has been. Thankfully, the circumstances are looked at on a case by case basis.

Fringe parties crop up now and again, and they don't EVER get anywhere; except as spoilers.

Did you not say ever?

Now, if you had said "Fringe parties crop up now and again, and they haven't gotten anywhere in 100 years; except as spoilers." I wouldn't have even brought it up. But you said ever and I called you on it.

Further, the Republican party did not elvolve exclusively from the whig party and the whig party was around long after the pubbies were formed. The (R) party of today formed from abolitionists on all sides of the isle (occupied mainly by Whigs and Democratic-Republicans)

The original cast...
Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas and Jacob Woodruff.

Said Mr. Bovay, "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soilers and Democrats. We came out as the first Republicans in the Union."
March 20, 1854.

EBUCK

You don't know how any of the Founding Fathers would have felt about many of our modern laws--the best anyone can do is guess. Some guesses are more educated than others, but even an educated guess is not a certainty, but Libertarians, more than others (at least here on FR) try to pass their guesses off as concrete fact, and they aren't. You haven't cornered the market on the Constitution, no matter how much you try to convince everyone you have. The best any of us can do is say, "This is the belief that I'm going to act on. This is what I believe is the best way to do things."

That is simply not correct. The Founding Fathers worked to implement a very definite philosophy in the Constitution, which you may learn about by studying how they were influenced by Locke etc. The Constitution was not designed to be an open document that anyone may foist his every whim or interpretation upon. The fact that your view has prevailed in the last century is exactly what has lead us into the mess we're into today.

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.