Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
The Washington Times ^ | 2009-07-01 | U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District

Posted on 07/03/2009 9:11:35 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Moving forward, I suggest that we as Americans adhere to these five principles:

1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions...

2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...

3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law...

4. We do not engage in nation-building...

5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations...

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


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: fauxconservatives; foreignpolicy; lunatic; noninterventionism; nutjob; psycho; realconservatives; ronpaul; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2009 9:11:35 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: djsherin; bamahead; traviskicks; Bokababe; dcwusmc; exit82

He does make a rather cogent argument for a foreign policy of non-interventionism here.


2 posted on 07/03/2009 9:13:06 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: rabscuttle385
We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here."

This always struck me as a bogus argument in the first place. Any politician truly dedicated to ensuring that we don't have to "fight them over here" would demand that we protect our borders. Yet the same people giving us the above line were surprisingly unconcerned that enemies of the US could easily sneak across the border and wreak havoc on our own soil.

4 posted on 07/03/2009 9:18:57 AM PDT by freespirited (Is this a nation of laws or a nation of Democrats? -- Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

True. And Republicans do not need to be confused any more than what they are.

parsy, who notes the way your sentence was worded.


5 posted on 07/03/2009 9:23:05 AM PDT by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

If we actually had intelligent immigration laws that were properly enforced and we actually acted like we have a second amendment, they wouldn’t come over here, because they’d be denied entry or shot if they somehow got in and tried something.


6 posted on 07/03/2009 9:23:12 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Ron Paul once again demonstrates 18th century logic in the 21st century.

His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.

If a stopped clock is right twice a day, does that mean you should live you life by it?


7 posted on 07/03/2009 9:24:24 AM PDT by Mr. Jazzy (No greater friend, no worse enemy -The United States Marine Corps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Of course he does, but as par, the writer arguably fails to recognize that if one wishes to be a super power, a foreign policy of non-intervention is a liberal myth, one mainly reserved for liberalist, internationalist, isolationist, and transnationalist political paradigms.


8 posted on 07/03/2009 9:28:59 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jazzy
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.

Sure, and his arguments about government intervention in the financial sector would be acceptable if there were no such things as collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps.

Oh, and I forgot, the Second Amendment is also a product of "eighteenth century logic."

9 posted on 07/03/2009 9:30:26 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; djsherin; bamahead; murphE; Extremely Extreme Extremist; Captain Kirk; Gondring; ...

***If we must fight, we should do so with overwhelming force, win as quickly as possible and promptly withdraw.***

WHAT A KOOK!


10 posted on 07/03/2009 9:30:41 AM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’d probably agree with him if there were no airplanes, ballistic missiles, submarines, ships and satellites.


11 posted on 07/03/2009 9:31:12 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jazzy
His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.

So that's what Obama's going to use on us? I thought he was just going to destroy us from within with socialism.

12 posted on 07/03/2009 9:32:25 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: VeniVidiVici

Who needs those things to attack or destroy America? We just decided to commit national suicide. The rest of the world just needs to pull up a chair and watch America in her death throes.


14 posted on 07/03/2009 9:35:22 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

And those things can’t be defended against unless we have troops all over the world?


15 posted on 07/03/2009 9:37:16 AM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

fyi


16 posted on 07/03/2009 9:38:01 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
"1. We do not abdicate American sovereignty to global institutions...
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...
3. We obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law...
4. We do not engage in nation-building...
5. We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations..."

Yeah, he sure is crazy./s

17 posted on 07/03/2009 9:38:52 AM PDT by murphE ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

Good one.


18 posted on 07/03/2009 9:39:00 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Duck buddy, because here it comes...


19 posted on 07/03/2009 9:40:26 AM PDT by Boiling Pots (B. Hussein Obama: The final turd George W. Bush laid on America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

We tried fighting them over here, it ended badly on September 11, 2001.


20 posted on 07/03/2009 9:41:11 AM PDT by usmcobra (Your chances of dying in bed are reduced by getting out of it, but most people still die in bed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

Exactly.

We are fighting in the middle east and yet taking in refugees from the same area. If their is a war on terrorism, then why allow them into the country.

Does the immigration agents know which are the good and bad muslims? Horse crap.

We are giving 24 million dollars on top of the 2 billion already allocated to the Palestinian’s to bring some 200k people to the US this year. WHY?

Are these not the same rock and rocket throwers who terrorize Israel every chance they get?

Why do we want them here? What value?

We are supporting terrorism by allowing them into the US. Which means, we will be fighting them there and here soon enough.


21 posted on 07/03/2009 9:41:14 AM PDT by VicVega (Join Jihad, get captured by the US and resettled in the best places in the world. I love the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

FWIW to the young Freepers who don’t know what a “double entendre” is, it is French for “two entrances” and was first used to describe shotgun houses which had a door at the front and back.

parsy, the entomologist


22 posted on 07/03/2009 9:41:29 AM PDT by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: parsifal; JackRyanCIA
entomologist

One who studies the origins of words, right?

Dang, that GRE study book is sure working wonders here, LOL.

23 posted on 07/03/2009 9:42:42 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: parsifal; JackRyanCIA

Wait, my bad. That’s etymologist. Entomologist? Parsifal, are you studying insects?

[Thank God I’m applying for a MS in a technical program and so my GRE verbal doesn’t matter as much.]


24 posted on 07/03/2009 9:43:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: rabscuttle385

Not really.

“Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.”

Ummm....no, there are a great many places we ignore. Darfur, for example. We aren’t trying to police India or Venezuela.

But when the oil our economy runs on is threatened in GW1, or when we need to shake things up after an attack on our soil killing 3000 people - then YES! Take the fight to them, and fight them on THEIR turf.

Perhaps Paul would like to wait until we have suicide attacks in our schools, or allow the terrorists a secure home base to plan future assaults.


26 posted on 07/03/2009 9:52:33 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
And those things can’t be defended against unless we have troops all over the world?

In that broad of sense, no they cannot.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

And yet even John Quincy Adams questioned the ever-increasing extortion of the Barbary Pirates. Thomas Jefferson then aimed to put an end to the pirates by launching an undeclared war. The ink was barely dry on the Constitution.

Fortress America didn't work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won't work now. In today's day and age, if America sticks her head up her collective ass, the world will be full of Barbary Pirates demanding tribute.

27 posted on 07/03/2009 9:55:17 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

Good thing Obama is an internationalist.


28 posted on 07/03/2009 10:01:06 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
During the last election, I thought his foreign policy position wasn't practical given that we had been attacked and that we were involved in a dual war situation we needed to finish.

Now we have given Iraq its start, I totally agree with Ron Paul on all points listed here. If we have alliances, then we should honor them, but our being the world police force or the personal security force for Europe and elsewhere only makes others weak while making us poor. It's certainly long past time to walk away from NATO.

29 posted on 07/03/2009 10:01:06 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Far be it from me to incur the wrath of the lobamatized Paultards, but I noticed a few things about this article. First, Paul is talking about "our foreign policy" and those nefarious "neocons" ignoring that "our" foreign policy is Obama's.

There is not one word for Obama.

Not. One. Word.

I can only assume he supports the current policy -- whatever it is.

He mentions Honduras not at all and only mentions Mohammad Mosaddeq, Obama's favorite Iranian. You know him, the great parliamentarian who was "democratically elected" although that is a bit misleading:

According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mossadeq stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum — had been elected."
Charming.

I could tear this idiotic anti-Semite's rant to pieces for the right price, but one piece of imbecilic nonsense: "We stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. America should conduct trade, travel and diplomacy with all willing nations."

This geriatric crank doesn't actually look at the world. Trading IS interference. Starbucks is Imperialism. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do, your presence is interference. Look at Obama in Iran, he tried desperately not to interfere and they blamed it for him anyway.

BTW, what is Paul's opinion on Honduras? It'd be nice if his "philosophy" is to be adopted that he describe how it would be manifested with respect to situations that have occurred in the last half-century.

30 posted on 07/03/2009 10:03:51 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
He neglects the proven fact that acts of foreign terrorism on US soil dropped off significantly once US soldiers started killing terrorists in their own (or adopted, or sponsoring) craphole countries.

We will never know how many US-bound terrorists were killed while attending "IED 101" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect it's more than a couple.

31 posted on 07/03/2009 10:08:33 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: murphE
2. We provide a strong national defense, but we do not police the world...

Someone will, well or poorly. I trust us more to do it well than any other.

My nick reflects my former, overseas-servng occupation.

32 posted on 07/03/2009 10:11:16 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Hey, hasn’t Obama been staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn’t he want to invade Pakistan?

If Obama hasn’t been itching to interfere in Honduras, then what is that?

Isn’t Obama about to get into a war with North Korea? Doesn’t that get you off enough?

Recently Ron Paul has been busy telling everyone who will listen that Congress and Obama are destroying America from the inside. No nukes from other countries are really needed to destroy America and enslave us.

The real enemy is inside and in the White House.

Ron Paul has been one of the most consistent enemies of collectivism, socialism, and communism in the Congress. He identified our real mortal threat.


33 posted on 07/03/2009 10:11:28 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: usmcobra

Amen.

Never again.

Or so I pray...


34 posted on 07/03/2009 10:12:09 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I like and respect Ron Paul on almost all issues. But I do not agree with him on his last few years of foreign poliy.

We were attacked mercilessly by foreigners who were in league with multiple nations. We took the war to them and have not been attacked in the same manner here since. Though they have tried, the fact that their entire leadership is hiding in holes in the ground and too busy fighting our forces in their own back yard has contributed to their inability to conduct major operations here.

Quite a few people thought like this prior to World War II...good thing they did not carry the day then. The attack that changfed their mind then, killed less Americans than 911.

35 posted on 07/03/2009 10:12:26 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parsifal

At least three errors. I assume an invisible “j/k” hidden in that post.


36 posted on 07/03/2009 10:13:38 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye
We will never know how many US-bound terrorists were killed while attending "IED 101" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, if we didn't go kill them over there, we MUST have to have let them into the country?

The problem on 9/11 was that Americans were so conditioned by the government at all levels to be helpless sheep - passive crime victims. The people on the flight that crashed in PA realized after the first three hit that the government's promis of "We'll protect you" is just a hollow lie.

You are the one to protect you. That is why you should always be armed and never trust the government.

37 posted on 07/03/2009 10:15:36 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
But, if we didn't go kill them over there, we MUST have to have let them into the country?

Where did you read that? Not in anything I have written, today or ever.

38 posted on 07/03/2009 10:16:52 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Keep your powder dry, and your iron hidden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
This always struck me as a bogus argument in the first place. Any politician truly dedicated to ensuring that we don't have to "fight them over here" would demand that we protect our borders.

Exactly correct. It's bogus.

39 posted on 07/03/2009 10:20:15 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

What I’m saying is: so what if they were US bound? Why would they have to be given entry? If we did not kill them over there, proper enforcement of immigration laws and rugged self reliance coupled with our natural right to defend ourselves - two things that “our” government has beaten out of us through generations of pussification - would take care of them.


40 posted on 07/03/2009 10:20:24 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
If Obama hasn’t been itching to interfere in Honduras, then what is that?

What? WHAT? Of course he's been interfering in Honduras.

It's been in all the papers. Or, if you don't read papers, (who does?) on the blogs.

Isn’t Obama about to get into a war with North Korea? Doesn’t that get you off enough?

Well, the Norks specifically threatened to send a missle to hit Hawaii. I would think that would be a casus belli for even the most ardent "non-interventionists".

But considering you mentioned them, why wouldn't Paul?

Recently Ron Paul has been busy telling everyone who will listen that Congress and Obama are destroying America from the inside.

He has? Funny, you'd think with the opportunity to get some significant column inches in the Washington Times, he'd mention them once. Just once. Especially when discussing "our" foreign policy.

Of course, he mentions "neocons in both the Republican and Democratic parties" and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unless "neocon" means something else in his mind. I wonder what it could be...

Ron Paul has been one of the most consistent enemies of collectivism, socialism, and communism in the Congress. He identified our real mortal threat.

Then he might mention the recent "collectivist, socialist and communist" who was formerly president of Honduras. I'd look up his name, but Paul doesn't mention it in his article.

41 posted on 07/03/2009 10:22:10 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jazzy
Ron Paul once again demonstrates 18th century logic in the 21st century.

His arguments would be acceptable if there were no such thing as strategic nuclear missiles or bio-weapons.

Then tell me, if this is the reason why we should intervene on every other country on earth, why did we not intervene and march on Russia, China and a number of other countries that have nuclear weapons?

42 posted on 07/03/2009 10:23:03 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Spelling ain’t my strong point.

parsy, who hasn’t even started drinking yet


43 posted on 07/03/2009 10:23:22 AM PDT by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

***In that broad of sense, no they cannot.***

And why is that?

***Fortress America didn’t work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won’t work now.***

We were attacked. We attacked back with overwhelming force and destroyed the enemy. Who is going to try that again?

***In today’s day and age, if America sticks her head up her collective ass, the world will be full of Barbary Pirates demanding tribute.***

Who is advocating that? If America would allow her citizens to arm themselves on the open seas or hire security, then personally, I would love to see these pirates come up in their dinky little boats and try to take over a ship.


44 posted on 07/03/2009 10:26:47 AM PDT by djsherin (Government is essentially the negation of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative; ExGeeEye; djsherin; bamahead; All
The problem on 9/11 was that Americans were so conditioned by the government at all levels to be helpless sheep - passive crime victims. The people on the flight that crashed in PA realized after the first three hit that the government's promis of "We'll protect you" is just a hollow lie. You are the one to protect you. That is why you should always be armed and never trust the government.

DING DING DING!!!

45 posted on 07/03/2009 10:30:27 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
What? WHAT? Of course he's been interfering in Honduras.

That's what you want, right? Or are you in favor of nonintervention in Honduras?

North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii, but that occurred after Obama threatened to blockade them. That was always considered an act of war in the past. The Democrat Party is back to its classic position of warmongering. Obama is clearly the aggressor with the "Norks".

I don't know why he didn't talk about honduras. Maybe because Obama has not used the excuse "If we don't fight the Hondurans down there, we'll have to fight them up here." argument, seeing as how that argument was the focus to the article.

46 posted on 07/03/2009 10:33:37 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (Just say "No" to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Fortress America didn't work in the days leading up to WWII and it certainly won't work now.

You seem to forget, America was attacked by Japan.

In addition, if we would of had a strong military already in place, that war would have been over in record time. Another fact is, if Japan had seen we had a superior war ready military machine in place, they would have *never* attached us in the first place.

47 posted on 07/03/2009 10:36:54 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Er...”Attacked.”


48 posted on 07/03/2009 10:38:39 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
That's what you want, right? Or are you in favor of nonintervention in Honduras?

The whole nonintervention meme is pure bovine feces. It's merely an excuse for tyrants to portray themselves as victims. You're stupid if you fall for it.

America must stand for liberty and cheer it when it manifests.

North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii, but that occurred after Obama threatened to blockade them.

which occurred after...which occurred after...

I notice that your chain of causes always stops with America doing whatever it chooses to do. There's always an excuse for tyrants, isn't there?

But now I know, if a country threatens economic sanctions, we can nuke them.

I don't know why he didn't talk about honduras.

Well, I'm sure you'll have to wait until he does before you know what to think of it.

49 posted on 07/03/2009 10:43:56 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
North Korea has threatened to nuke Hawaii

And China threatened to nuke the west coast. What are you going to do about it?

Why didn't we intervene and march on Russia, China and a host of other nuclear countries?

50 posted on 07/03/2009 10:48:47 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson