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

Skip to comments.

Why I Became a Conservative: A British liberal discovers England's greatest philosopher.
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | Wednesday, February 5, 2003 | By Roger Scruton

Posted on 02/04/2003 10:13:26 PM PST by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
Wednesday, February 5, 2003

Quote of the Day by EternalVigilance

1 posted on 02/04/2003 10:13:26 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Very nice. I'm bookmarking this about 2/3 through because I've got to get to bed. But it's really an excellent essay.
2 posted on 02/04/2003 10:30:27 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Worth re-reading again tomorrow.
3 posted on 02/04/2003 10:36:31 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Great read.

Thanks for posting it.

4 posted on 02/04/2003 10:42:40 PM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
Welcome
5 posted on 02/04/2003 10:44:22 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
G'nite, amigo.
6 posted on 02/04/2003 10:45:20 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
This is truly one of the most incredible essays I have ever read.... it is long, but so very, very worth it.

I'm in awe.

Tammy
7 posted on 02/04/2003 10:51:44 PM PST by Tamzee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
Fancy finding you on this page, my well worded friend.
8 posted on 02/04/2003 11:19:19 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Carry_Okie
"The abstract, unreal freedom of the liberal intellect was really nothing more than childish disobedience, amplified into anarchy."
9 posted on 02/04/2003 11:20:11 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Marvellous, John. Bookmarking and printing it.

And thanks so much for all you do around here. It's the handful of people like you, searching out the best in writing, like this, that make FR the constant delight it is.

10 posted on 02/04/2003 11:40:08 PM PST by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
What interested me in the [Burke's] Reflections was the positive political philosophy,

The wisest person I know suggested this book to me and I still haven't read it...

11 posted on 02/04/2003 11:40:50 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee (const vector<tags>& theTags)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
*bump*
12 posted on 02/04/2003 11:45:01 PM PST by Tredge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
Why, thank you, good buddy. Appreciate the kind words.
13 posted on 02/04/2003 11:53:28 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The trouble with Edmund Burke's philosophy is that it can be used to justify anything. Therefore, it says nothing.
14 posted on 02/04/2003 11:56:32 PM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
"What interested me in the [Burke's] Reflections was the positive political philosophy,"

A few years back in a used book store I found an old paperback that combined Burkes' "Reflections" and Thomas Paines' "Rights of Man". The contrast is stark.

15 posted on 02/05/2003 12:02:34 AM PST by fella
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fella
Indeed it is.
16 posted on 02/05/2003 12:03:02 AM PST by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
I am uncomfortable with his assertion that hierarchical obedience in service to an established hereditary order is necessity to a free society. I think he misses the true message offered by de Toqueville, that people whose obedience is to God and country as the source of their own freedom, will, as long as they remain vigilant, meet every requirement for both vision and continuity he rightly cites as essential to continued liberty. (Mayhap his infatuation with British law is at root of this unfortunate prejudice.)

It is more a testament to Mann and Dewey and the great wave of immigration that overwhelmed the nation's indigenous Constitutional culture with a European worldview that we have slid so far, much to the delight of European investors who meant us no good will by virtue of its instigation through abetting the Civil War.

I am delighted with the author's observation of the importance of respect for tradition and posterity. He fails, however, to recognize that one who would truly live for one-self enriches that daily life by extending the horizon of one's goals and aspirations beyond that life's own span. No need for kings or riches, as the heavenly one will do.

Ah well, he is young and yet still has time to learn.

17 posted on 02/05/2003 12:38:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
It's the handful of people like you, searching out the best in writing, like this, that make FR the constant delight it is.

And there I thought it was the rest of us peons, sigh. Yea, The King of Ping and I. ;-)

18 posted on 02/05/2003 12:42:40 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
BUMP
19 posted on 02/05/2003 1:41:55 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I am impressed with your comment.

The problem is, as I see it, that people will not remain vigilant. They will turn from God. Even in good times only a small minority of God centered people exist; in bad times, only a few. Obedience to social heirarchy need not violate justice unduly, and can make bad times survivable. If your community consists of serious Christians now, there is no guarantee about future generations. And those serious Christians will certainly sort themselves out into a heirarchy, and try to pass on social position to their offspring.

20 posted on 02/05/2003 2:13:31 AM PST by Iris7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Absolutely outstanding.
Three other arguments of Burke’s made a comparable impression. The first was the defense of authority and obedience. Far from being the evil and obnoxious thing that my contemporaries held it to be, authority was, for Burke, the root of political order. Society, he argued, is not held together by the abstract rights of the citizen, as the French Revolutionaries supposed. It is held together by authority—by which is meant the right to obedience, rather than the mere power to compel it. And obedience, in its turn, is the prime virtue of political beings, the disposition which makes it possible to govern them, and without which societies crumble into “the dust and powder of individuality.” Those thoughts seemed as obvious to me as they were shocking to my contemporaries. In effect Burke was upholding the old view of man in society, as subject of a sovereign, against the new view of him, as citizen of a state. And what struck me vividly was that, in defending this old view, Burke demonstrated that it was a far more effective guarantee of the liberties of the individual than the new idea, which was founded in the promise of those very liberties, only abstractly, universally, and therefore unreally defined. Real freedom, concrete freedom, the freedom that can actually be defined, claimed, and granted, was not the opposite of obedience but its other side. The abstract, unreal freedom of the liberal intellect was really nothing more than childish disobedience, amplified into anarchy. Those ideas exhilarated me, since they made sense of what I had seen in 1968. But when I expressed them, in a book published in 1979 as The Meaning of Conservatism, I blighted what remained of my academic career.

21 posted on 02/05/2003 4:25:38 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
.
22 posted on 02/05/2003 4:34:59 AM PST by dennisw ( http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I am uncomfortable with his assertion that hierarchical obedience in service to an established hereditary order is necessity to a free society. I think he misses the true message offered by de Toqueville, that people whose obedience is to God and country as the source of their own freedom, will, as long as they remain vigilant, meet every requirement for both vision and continuity he rightly cites as essential to continued liberty.
I think that when you describe an obedience to God and country, he would say that is a hierarchial obedience in service to an established hereditary order. In other words, de Toqueville is offering a reaffirmation and specification of the very idea you are saying the author missed.
23 posted on 02/05/2003 4:58:36 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It is more a testament to Mann and Dewey and the great wave of immigration that overwhelmed the nation's indigenous Constitutional culture with a European worldview that we have slid so far, much to the delight of European investors who meant us no good will by virtue of its instigation through abetting the Civil War.

I am delighted with the author's observation of the importance of respect for tradition and posterity.

I think these two concepts are tied together. Over generations, in nations throughout the world, there has generally been a distrust or prejudice against foreigners. The enlightened push to remove this prejudice has had adverse consequences that Burke would easily have foreseen, such as the erosion of culture and the degredation of national security. The fear of any single foreigner is irrational; the consequence of a nation losing all suspicion of outsiders, however, is just as severe as the breakdown in sexual morals the author describes. Hatred of foreigners is morally indefensible, but accepting them as one of our own when they are not is a recipie for disaster. It is a tough balancing act on which the western world has been too often on the side of liberalism, and the results have not been good. We should all agree that bigotry, including the hate and including the degradation and including the infringements on dignity and liberty, is wrong and should not be tolerated by a civilized society. But we should all recognize that protecting national interests, including culture, is not bigotry.

The modern world is much smaller than the old world, and as such immigration and intermingling of cultures would have out of necessity expanded and evolved. But to try to force the issue in some striving for brotherhood may have a romantic appeal but likely has practical consequences of a devastating nature. 9/11 demonstrated this.

24 posted on 02/05/2003 5:10:32 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
.
25 posted on 02/05/2003 5:43:47 AM PST by kitkat (FOR SALE: First Ave. between 42 & 48 Sts.NY City Former site of the U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
I think that when you describe an obedience to God and country, he would say that is a hierarchial obedience in service to an established hereditary order. In other words, de Toqueville is offering a reaffirmation and specification of the very idea you are saying the author missed.

The distinction is one of substance, not of form. Obedience to God is hierarchical, but it is a totally flat management structure with an infinitely benevolent and omniscient despot. The choice to obey is totally without apparent coercion; one is free to reject the very idea of hell. To choose to obey God is an act in the pursuit of freedom. The hierarchy in this article to which I objected was hereditary monarchy> nobility> commoner, for which the author's conservatism has an apparent predisposition.

Not me. I've had just about enough of its financial analog here in America, with their destructive influence buying through tax-exempt "charitable" foundations. Give me the Silicon Valley hierarchy of productivity, invention, and drive, over the Rockefeller/Pew/Ford/MacArthur/Chase/Morgan/Phillips/Walker... hierarchy any day, although the former is morphing into looking like its Eastern model as we speak (the Packard Foundation is an abomination to liberty).

26 posted on 02/05/2003 7:15:34 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
The problem is, as I see it, that people will not remain vigilant. They will turn from God.

Some do, some don't. That's just how things are. It is incumbent upon those who lead to incorporate that vision for posterity and to teach. Too often, whether it is business, government, or religion, fathers spend so much time on their work that they forget their first responsibility to both home and community, relying upon distracted institutions to pass the baton. It's the tyranny of the urgent in the pursuit of status and wealth.

Even in good times only a small minority of God centered people exist; in bad times, only a few.

That is not my observation. It would seem that in bad times people tend to remember the Lord. Consider the behavior of the children of Israel in both sets of Kings and Chronicles.

Obedience to social heirarchy need not violate justice unduly, and can make bad times survivable.

Or it can make them worse. It depends too much upon the despot. I prefer the Republic to hereditary nobility. Without the hope of the individual for a leap out of their current status, the entire society loses hope, much as we see in socialist dictatorships, where the hierarchy is to government or a rather less than benevolent despot.

If your community consists of serious Christians now, there is no guarantee about future generations. And those serious Christians will certainly sort themselves out into a heirarchy, and try to pass on social position to their offspring.

I don't worry about passing on hierarchy or social status to my children, I focus upon their education, both temporal and spiritual. I homeschool both my kids and incorporate them into my business life as much as possible, not as a way to pass on an advantage over others, but because I think it will improve their education.

27 posted on 02/05/2003 7:32:26 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Bookmarking.
28 posted on 02/05/2003 8:24:16 AM PST by HumanaeVitae (The purpose of the 'animal rights' movement is not to humanize animals; it is to dehumanize men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

^
29 posted on 02/05/2003 11:11:12 AM PST by Dumb_Ox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thank you for your kind reply. By "bad times" I meant times of unfaith, times filled with people like those St. Paul describes in the second half of the first chapter of his letter to the Romans. I am sorry I was so unclear.

I believe I agree with your point of view except (and I am no Calvinist) I believe mankind too fallen, too sinful and half witted - certainly including myself in times past - to live in peace without a respect for authority. A good father (I pray for the grace to be one) will raise children that respect him and themselves. Such children will render Caesar what is Caesar's, without illusions, without guile, and without servility.

30 posted on 02/06/2003 1:19:58 AM PST by Iris7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Not me. I've had just about enough of its financial analog here in America, with their destructive influence buying through tax-exempt "charitable" foundations. Give me the Silicon Valley hierarchy of productivity, invention, and drive, over the Rockefeller/Pew/Ford/MacArthur/Chase/Morgan/Phillips/Walker... hierarchy any day, although the former is morphing into looking like its Eastern model as we speak (the Packard Foundation is an abomination to liberty).

Couldn't agree more completely.

31 posted on 02/06/2003 1:34:16 AM PST by Iris7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; PARodrig; rmlew; firebrand; nutmeg; Yehuda; RaceBannon; Warrior Nurse
philosophy ding dong. Aren't you tired of pings?
32 posted on 02/06/2003 1:51:24 AM PST by Cacique (Censored by Admin Moderator!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; kdf1; AMERIKA; Lancey Howard; MudPuppy; SMEDLEYBUTLER; opbuzz; Snow Bunny; ...
This is a very good read!
33 posted on 02/06/2003 4:45:26 AM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Your boy Eric is mentioned in this interesting piece BB. I read a slim volume by Scruton last year, From Descartes to Wittgenstein, which you might want to put on your list if you have room.
34 posted on 02/06/2003 10:07:03 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: beckett; KC Burke; cornelis; Phaedrus; Diamond; Askel5; Alamo-Girl; VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; ...
Real freedom, concrete freedom, the freedom that can actually be defined, claimed, and granted, was not the opposite of obedience but its other side. The abstract, unreal freedom of the liberal intellect was really nothing more than childish disobedience, amplified into anarchy….

The effect of the contemporary Rousseauist ideas of social contract was to place the present members of society in a position of dictatorial dominance over those who went before and those who came after them…. In Burke’s eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke’s view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with the living members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on.…

…but I had not grasped the deep negative thesis, the glimpse into Hell, contained in [Burke’s] vision of the Revolution….

Perhaps the most fascinating and terrifying aspect of Communism was its ability to banish truth from human affairs, and to force whole populations to “live within the lie,” as President Havel put it…. To me it was the greatest revelation, when first I travelled to Czechoslovakia in 1979, to come face to face with a situation in which people could, at any moment, be removed from the book of history, in which truth could not be uttered, and in which the Party could decide from day to day not only what would happen tomorrow, but also what had happened today, what had happened yesterday, and what had happened before its leaders had been born. This, I realized, was the situation that Burke was describing, to a largely incredulous readership, in 1790. And two hundred years later the situation still existed, and the incredulity along with it.

These are, indeed, “exhilarating ideas,” beckett. The “unscrupulous” modernist (rationalist) belief in progress and the future has perverted more than just modern politics – it has arguably perverted science, philosophy, and art as well.

What an outstanding essay, beckett! Thank you so much for pinging it to me.

p.s.: Looks like I need to make another trip to amazon.com, for Scruton's From Descartes to Wittgenstein.

35 posted on 02/07/2003 8:02:40 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Thanks for this truly outstanding post, JohnHuang2.
36 posted on 02/07/2003 8:03:18 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Having nothing of my own to contribute, I'll just bump an interesting thread.
37 posted on 02/07/2003 8:17:22 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I am a conservative because I was 12 years old in 1956, and saw photos in Life magazine of 12 year old Hungarian children standing on Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. I have never since given any credence to anyone who sympathized with the Soviets or questioned our opposition to them. The press was not always what it is now.
38 posted on 02/07/2003 8:23:55 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
bump. thanks for posting such a thoughtful article.
39 posted on 02/07/2003 8:25:56 AM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; beckett
Wow! Excellent essay beckett! Thank you so much for the heads up, betty boop!
40 posted on 02/07/2003 8:30:30 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
What, I asked, do you propose to put in the place of this “bourgeoisie” whom you so despise, and to whom you owe the freedom and prosperity that enable you to play on your toy barricades? What vision of France and its culture compels you? And are you prepared to die for your beliefs, or merely to put others at risk in order to display them? I was obnoxiously pompous: but for the first time in my life I had felt a surge of political anger, finding myself on the other side of the barricades from all the people I knew.

She replied with a book: Foucault’s Les mots et les choses, the bible of the soixante-huitards, the text which seemed to justify every form of transgression, by showing that obedience is merely defeat. It is an artful book, composed with a satanic mendacity, selectively appropriating facts in order to show that culture and knowledge are nothing but the “discourses” of power. The book is not a work of philosophy but an exercise in rhetoric. Its goal is subversion, not truth, and it is careful to argue—by the old nominalist sleight of hand that was surely invented by the Father of Lies—that “truth” requires inverted commas, that it changes from epoch to epoch, and is tied to the form of consciousness, the “episteme,” imposed by the class which profits from its propagation. The revolutionary spirit, which searches the world for things to hate, has found in Foucault a new literary formula. Look everywhere for power, he tells his readers, and you will find it. Where there is power there is oppression. And where there is oppression there is the right to destroy. In the street below my window was the translation of that message into deeds.

natural selection

41 posted on 02/07/2003 8:35:36 AM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
outstanding assessment. While reading this, I could help but think of the status of immigration into the US.
42 posted on 02/07/2003 8:40:13 AM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
bump
43 posted on 02/07/2003 8:43:25 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
We should ponder the extraordinary fact that Oxford University, which granted an honorary degree to Bill Clinton on the grounds that he had once hung around its precincts, refused the same honor to Margaret Thatcher, its most distinguished post-war graduate and Britain’s first woman Prime Minister.

Appalling.

44 posted on 02/07/2003 8:47:01 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Great post - I get chills reading the scene in Czechoslovakia. "The air raid was me." Just so.

You have to realize that when Burke wrote Reflections that the revolution in France had not yet entered its Terror phase, and that much of what he wrote that appears to us as a sad chronicle was, in fact, a stunning prediction. So accurate it's spooky, so accurate I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't already been published by the time the heads started appearing in the baskets.

I, like "feller" above, read it and its reply by Paine, The Rights of Man, in sequence. The one serves as a corrective to the other, Paine's passionate defense of liberty contrasted against Burke's grim prediction of just how that would be abused, Burke's equally passionate defense of the existing social order punctured by Paine's description of how that had been abused. Both men were foreigners (Burke, Irish, and Paine, English) working in their respective venues (Britain and France), and hence had a view of their subject unclouded by simple parochialism. Both wrote beautifully and convincingly about their points of view.

I find it a bit disturbing that American colleges are lauded as presenting more of a corrective to Marxism than their European counterparts, inasmuch as the former seem the last bastion of true belief in such intellectual manipulators as Michael Foucault. That fellow is mandatory reading for anyone who really wants to get inside the motivations of today's left - to Foucault life is politics and politics is (literally) a struggle for power between groups pursuing dominance over other groups. What seems odd to me is the emotional attachment many of his followers have to this essentially sterile view of society, but they are as passionate about it as Burke and Paine were, without the redeeming element of rational analysis (that being - surprise! - merely a tool of power in Foucault's view, like everything else). Political discourse between left and right has been cheapened and made superficial, and that's one reason.

45 posted on 02/07/2003 9:09:21 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I'm glad that you enjoyed my writings.
46 posted on 02/07/2003 9:19:51 AM PST by Edmund Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edmund Burke
hehe, honor to meet you, Sir.
47 posted on 02/07/2003 9:21:49 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Welcome, friend.
48 posted on 02/07/2003 9:22:22 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Good essay. Thanks for the ping.
49 posted on 02/07/2003 10:43:26 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Purity of essence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Glad you found it enjoyable, A-G. So did I. We both have JohnHuang to thank. I found it on my daily trip to Arts & Letters Daily, was going to post it, and then found John had beat me to it.
50 posted on 02/07/2003 3:34:15 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-154 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