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

Skip to comments.

More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex (Ron Paul)
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District ^ | 2010-05-24

Posted on 05/24/2010 10:02:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month.

If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending.

The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.

Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.

The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!

We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases.

With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so.

There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending.


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 last
To: TheBigIf
If "We the People" America really was "an empire", every heroin user in America would be dead -- overdosed on the all the free opium we'd have brought back from Afghanistan.

If "We the People" America really was "an empire", gasoline would be $1 a gallon, because US-occupied Iraqi oilfields would be pumping just for us.

If "We the People" America really was "an empire", we'd never go to war unless we personally could profit from it, and our US citizenship would guarantee shares of those spoils of war.

"We the People" America is clearly NOT "an empire", because not one of those things are true. All that "We the People" America has ever gotten for any of our military actions is the bill.

It is not "Un-American" to ask who did profit from all of this -- as a matter of fact, it is our duty as citizens to question what our leaders are doing with our country.

Why do you continually feel the need to interject yourself into intellectual debates, TheBigIf, expecting to win the argument with nothing more than name-calling, testosterone (that you probably don't have in real life) and slander?

151 posted on 05/27/2010 12:01:13 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Right and all you did ask was who was profiting from the bill of an American empire that we are not seeing the benefits of. In other words you insinuated that America was an empire but that it did not benefit the people and it was only logical that we should ask who the American empire was benefitting.

I simply presented another possibility to you that we are acting in the nation’s interests abroad and then it was you who started with “name-calling, testosterone (that you probably don’t have in real life) and slander?”

You obviously can not even follow your own train of thought. You also continually act as a hypocrite who does the exact things that you huff and puff about when it is re-directed back at you.

As I said before you are pathetic.


152 posted on 05/27/2010 12:24:33 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

“So the next logical question is: If we are paying for an Empire and don’t have an Empire, whose Empire have we been paying for? “

Here are your own words idiot. You imply that America is an empire.


153 posted on 05/27/2010 12:27:25 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
NYCslicker: "We don’t have an Empire, but we are paying for one. Does that make it better, or worse than having an Empire?

Me:"So the next logical question is: If we are paying for an Empire and don't have an Empire, whose Empire have we been paying for? "

Now you can't even bother to read. KMA TheBigIf.

154 posted on 05/27/2010 12:45:12 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Are you so much an idiot that your posting your own words insinuating that American foreign policy is that of an empire and then still believing that you didn’t say that??? You even said the only ‘logical’ question was whose empire it is that we are supporting with our tax dollars. I simply responded to your post with another possibility that was not so anti-American as the one you were espousing and of course now you are defensive.


155 posted on 05/27/2010 12:55:40 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

You are a boorish obnoxious twit, a total waste of time & energy. Buzz off.


156 posted on 05/27/2010 2:21:12 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

If you want to rail against Rand Paul and libertarians that’s your choice.

For me, mainstream Republicanism has had a long chance to do its work, and we’ve seen how well its done it, but if you want to stick with the approach of attacking libertarians because you don’t agree with everything they believe in, or you think that Progressivism is better than Libertarianism, then that’s your right as an American citizen.

I just happen to disagree.


157 posted on 05/27/2010 5:04:34 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

“And why don’t you show me a quote from any of these conservatives you claim are willing to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons or your accusation against conservative republicans is bogus.”

You must have me confused with someone. I didn’t say anything about a conservative being willing to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

However, I will add this point to the discussion based on what you said here:

“The problem we have now is that we have radicals such as Paul teaming up with the CodePink left-wing radicals in stagnating our efforts to get something done by equating terrorist sponsoring dictatorships with our allies and even the United States itself.”

If Rand Paul is a radical, answer this question:

What is he a radical for?

I’m a radical too. A radical Capitalist. And that is a very good thing.

Maybe you should be a radical Conservative, and then we would have a lot of common goals, or maybe you would rather just “go along and get along.”


158 posted on 05/27/2010 5:11:42 PM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: NYCslicker

The radical aspect of Ron Paul that I am talking about is his foreign policy stances. His tendency to make statements that blame America for terrorism and his arguments for making dictatorships the moral equivalent of more representative governments. That is why I put him in the same category as Code Pink.

There are many aspects to Ron Paul that I respect and would defend. Even though I do not support him or his son I have recently defended his son in regards to the flap he is taking in regards to the civil rights act.

In all honesty I have always said that I wish the two major parties were libertarian and conservative. Even though I am not a liberarian I do respect a true libertarian. (There are many phoney ones though like the libertarian party of Kentucky which recently condemned Rand Paul)


159 posted on 05/28/2010 5:28:19 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe; NYCslicker

So now the phony Constitutionalist Ron Paul has found new methods to attack our Armed Forces by using government to force his perverted morality on them. The pervert Paul not only supports the rights of terrorists and dictatorships over the rights of the American people but now has voted to put the rights of perverts over the rights of the men and woman serving in our Armed Forces.

http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2010/05/28/ron-paul-votes-to-repeal-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D/


160 posted on 05/28/2010 9:06:25 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf; NYCslicker
"So now the phony Constitutionalist Ron Paul has found new methods to attack our Armed Forces by using government to force his perverted morality on them."

Ron Paul, Jun 3, 2007

"And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."

161 posted on 05/28/2010 9:54:25 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

So in his own words the pervert Paul thinks homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior morally. Now he has taken this perversion of his one step further and is using his power as a representative to force this perverted morality of his on the men and woman of the Armed Forces.

Paul is a disgrace.


162 posted on 05/28/2010 9:57:07 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"So in his own words the pervert Paul thinks homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior morally."

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution protects the rights of the individual to be treated equally, regardless of whether they are saints or sinners.

The core of the issue from a legal and functional perspective is "whether there is sexual behavior that is disruptive" -- if so, the source of it (homosexual, heterosexual) is irrelevant. It simply needs to be stopped and dealt with. That's ground neutral -- not "pro-gay" or "pro-hetero".

But you want the stamp of Social Conservatism on this issue and RP doesn't give you that, so you resort Rachel Maddow/Saul Alinsky tactics. Two words for you: "Grow up".

163 posted on 05/28/2010 10:19:17 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

The Constitution does not protect ‘behavior’ to be treated equally. Of course this is obvious to most people yet it seems to escape many people.

Are mens and women’s bathrooms un-Constitutional? Of course not because as a people we make a moral decision about the behavior between men and women and discriminate in regards to that behavior.

Is Paul going to bring forth a bill for all bathrooms and showers to be coed in the military? Why would he discriminate against heterosexual behavior but then tell our servicemen and women that they have no right to be against showering with people who openly flaunt their homosexual behavior?

Paul is a phony Constitutionalist who injects his own perverted morality into law in order to force it upon others. He is a disgrace.


164 posted on 05/28/2010 10:32:53 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Ok fair enough.


165 posted on 05/28/2010 11:32:36 AM PDT by NYCslicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"The Constitution does not protect ‘behavior’ to be treated equally."

The Constitution protects the rights of the individual (not the group, hetero or homo) to be treated equally.

Not all heterosexual behavior is "holy" (hookers, adultery, sexually explicit behavior, etc), ether. With an integrated male/female military, occurrences of "sexual behavior that is disruptive" (even among heteros) are now even far more likely to occur, and they need to be disciplined. This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure.

The male/female bathroom example is off on a tangent -- not all public bathrooms are divided into male/female, and there are sound practical reasons based on differences in physiology for having separate male/female bathrooms for venues with heavy traffic.

However, after having said all of that, I would still want to see the military's own report on the subject to see what policy they recommend and why. I have no idea why they forced this vote before that report was out, except to play to the politics of the issue.

Ultimately, the fitness and readiness of the military to do its job must be the most important objective -- not simply "fairness" -- because we have a voluntary military and no citizen is being subjected to military rules against their will. They know what they are getting into before they get there. On the other hand, if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is simply arbitrary, then ditch it.

166 posted on 05/28/2010 12:05:45 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

You hypocritically claim that you want to discuss this based upon individual rights and not group rights but then go on to make the argument that we need to treat the two groups of hetero and homo equally. Here are your words:
“This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure. “
Again you are showing that you cannot even follow your own thought process. One second you are against group rights and then you are arguing for group rights. You want heterosexuality and homosexuality treated equally by your own words. This may be your morality but it is a perverted morality.
Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.
And there is no tangent in regards to coed facilities but that is instead the crux of the issue in where Paul is violating the individual rights of our men and women in the Armed Forces. Paul has voted for a bill that would force men and women to bunk with and shower with people who openly admit to having a perversion towards people of the same gender. So in essence we have a double standard then whereas we discriminate against coed facilities based upon heterosexual behavior but force people to have to deal with homosexual behavior.
Basically Paul’s words that you posted on this issue state clearly enough that Paul morally believes that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. He is a pervert and has no respect for true equality under the law. His constant attacks on our military and National Security in order to promote his perverted morality is pathetic.


167 posted on 05/28/2010 12:28:52 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

You hypocritically claim that you want to discuss this based upon individual rights and not group rights but then go on to make the argument that we need to treat the two groups of hetero and homo equally. Here are your words:

“This would discipline both disruptive heteros and homos with the same measure. “

Again you are showing that you cannot even follow your own thought process. One second you are against group rights and then you are arguing for group rights. You want heterosexuality and homosexuality treated equally by your own words. This may be your morality but it is a perverted morality.

Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.

And there is no tangent in regards to coed facilities but that is instead the crux of the issue in where Paul is violating the individual rights of our men and women in the Armed Forces. Paul has voted for a bill that would force men and women to bunk with and shower with people who openly admit to having a perversion towards people of the same gender. So in essence we have a double standard then whereas we discriminate against coed facilities based upon heterosexual behavior but force people to have to deal with homosexual behavior.

Basically Paul’s words that you posted on this issue state clearly enough that Paul morally believes that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. He is a pervert and has no respect for true equality under the law. His constant attacks on our military and National Security in order to promote his perverted morality is pathetic.


168 posted on 05/28/2010 12:30:11 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"You hypocritically claim that you want to discuss this based upon individual rights"

Let me rephrase it for you in long form: "Sexually disruptive behavior" is "sexually disruptive behavior", period -- no place in the military, same discipline regardless of the sexual orientation of the individual.

Why don’t you give one example of a practical reason to divide men and women facilities based upon physiology. There is none.

Good grief, if I have to spell this one out for you, then you have no business debating anything that requires actual use of brain synapses:

Because women don't have the physical equipment to use urinals. Because women have menstrual periods. Because it takes a woman on average longer to use the bathroom than it does a man. One of the reasons to separate male and female restrooms in large venues is efficiency -- you can turn over more men needing to urinate by installing urinals than you can turn over women using a stall. Physiological differences.

My thoughts yesterday were correct. Waste of time and energy.

169 posted on 05/28/2010 1:22:52 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

You want to concentrate on “sexually disruptive behavior” as if homosexuality is normal and not disruptive? That is your perverted morality. Homosexuality is a corruption of natural sexuality and should not be forced as acceptable in public. It is disruptive. You and Paul want to use the federal government to force your perverted morality on others. You claim to be Constitutionalists who want to secure our liberty but the gig is up. Paul is pushing a fascist agenda to force his perverted morality on our Armed Services.

And uh you do know idiot that bathrooms have stalls? That woman can use. And you claim that menstrual cycles make it so men cannot use the same facilities? I guess you should enlighten all of the men who share a bathroom with woman in their home. And woman take more time? Get real. You haven’t given one real reason for discriminating in regards to heterosexual behavior when not doing the same in regards to homosexual behavior.

It is you who are a waste of time. You want to push for treating types of behavior as being equal as if the Constitution calls for that when it does not. The Founders would have never supported your agenda to force this perversion upon the People.


170 posted on 05/28/2010 1:37:52 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

“sexual orientation of the individual.”

I noticed that you used this BS term created by the left-wing to make homosexual behavior seem more natural. Thus you are arguing for the federal government to force others to accept you perversions.

You really are a waste of time.


171 posted on 05/28/2010 1:55:46 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
"Thus you are arguing for the federal government to force others to accept you perversions."

WHAT? I am long happily married to a member of the opposite sex! Seems to me you are the one with the perverse preoccupation with homosexuality and a need to punish it. What is it -- the thought turns you on?

I am simply for the government keeping its nose out of where it doesn't belong -- and it doesn't belong in people's sex lives!

172 posted on 05/28/2010 5:17:40 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Who is threatened by a nuclear Iran? Do you seriously suggest that Iran would use them against the United States?


173 posted on 05/29/2010 8:29:31 PM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

I didn’t accuse you of being homosexual. You do have a perverse morality though being that you think homosexuality is a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexuality and that you want it to have special protections as such by the federal government. This is what Ron Paul stated in the words of his that you posted here and it is also what you are arguing for. You even use the left-wing deception of calling homosexuality some sort of natural ‘orientation’ instead of being the perversion that it is.

Now you are also using the left-wing strawman argument that this issue has something to do with having the government go into people’s bedrooms and sex lives. This is an issue of how sexuality is dealt with in public. It is a violation of the rights of the men and women of the Armed Forces to have to be forced to deal with open expressions of perversion and then be told that they have to bunk, shower and deal with this. The total hypocrisy of Ron Paul’s position is that he accepts separate facilities for men and woman based upon discrimination of known heterosexual behavior but then wants to force men and women to integrate themselves in these same facilities with people openly expressing their homosexual perversion.

If you espouse this same position then you are most certainly trying to force your perverse morality on others.


174 posted on 06/01/2010 6:06:00 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Yes, the money will indeed by spent. Some of us don’t live in La La land.


175 posted on 06/01/2010 2:37:26 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: HospiceNurse

Ron is even more.

Ron is a jew hating, isolationist , earmark lovin crackpot whose shelf life is way past expired.


176 posted on 08/11/2010 5:35:52 PM PDT by ncalburt (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers
what logical person does not think the nutters in Iran would not drop the bomb on the usa ?
why do you think china and russia have financed the Iranian bomb ?
177 posted on 08/11/2010 5:38:31 PM PDT by ncalburt (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
No more protection for American interests abroad. No more helping deter genocide in the world. No more helping expand the cause of freedom.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

178 posted on 08/12/2010 10:44:06 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt
If Iran even made a move toward that we'd turn the entire country into glass. The Persians aren't stupid. No country will attack the United States.

As to terror groups like Al Queda, our tepid, insanely misdirected response to 9-11 only encouraged terror groups to launch more attacks. Instead of invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9-11), the much smarter policy after 9-11 would have been to meet terror with unspeakable terror. I mean kill all of the terrorists, kill their families, forcing them first to eat pork and sh*t on the Koran. Then nuke Mecca and nuke any Muslim city that dared to stage a public protest in response. Basically, kill them all and let God sort them out. Meet their terror with a terror so unspeakable that men centuries hence will wince to think of it. Respond with terror so horrific that Lenin himself would vomit at the thought.

They talk about how nobody can conquer Afganistan. But there was one guy who did it - Ghengis Khan and his Mongols. He did it by killing everybody, making mountains of skulls throughout all of Central Asia. Ghengis Khan left entire divisions of his horsemen behind so that they could hunt down the last starving child shivering in the rubble of the cities he destroyed. Terror. Thorough, unspeakable terror. That's what works.

So it can be done. I loved that line in Apocalypse Now - terror is either your friend or it is an enemy to be feared. If Bush II and his entourage of fools had any sort of balls at all (and we know that Bush II was a draft dodger, so he was not only an idiot but a gutless one at that) the response to 9-11 would have been so complete and so horrific that no Muslim would have dared to raise their eyes from the ground for generations hence.

But no, Sugar Foot had to don a white hat and proceed, checkbook in hand, to try to convert the Muslims to democracy.

What a fool.

And we're still paying for it.

As it is, we lack the stomach for meeting terror with terror, which is perceived (inevitably) as weakness by these spiritually stunted Muslim cultures. Instead of killing the terrorists and their families and genociding any village that dared to harbor one of them, we took the insane step of invading Iraq (which again had nothing to do with 9-11) and trying to convince a bunch of Muzzies that democwacy is a good thing, and likewise trying to bring a hopelessly backward place like Afghanistan into the modern world.

Mass, merciless retaliation (including nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina) and religious terror were the sole proper responses to 9-11. It would have been cheap and effective. It would be over in a few weeks, and we would have used weapons that we have plenty of.

"Nation building" in Muslim countries could only be seriously considered by a drooling idiot. The Bush II administration was full of drooling idiots, which is why seven years later we're still spending billions and billions of dollars and losing precious American lives in two pointless, no-win wars WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.

Thanks for destroying our country, "conservatives."

Ron Paul is right. American foreign policy must be Fortress America. Live your lowly lives and you will, Muzzies. But if you attack us, our response will be so unimaginably horrific and so Tuetonically thorough that you will begin your calendar anew. Year one won't be Mohammed's Hejira, but the year of our response.

179 posted on 08/12/2010 11:13:48 AM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Erskine Childers

Iran is headed by a full blown NUT dictator .
he will blow up the middle east.

Ron Paul is fraud and JEW HATER and a media HOG !


180 posted on 08/12/2010 11:47:36 AM PDT by ncalburt (e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt
Iran is headed by a full blown NUT dictator . he will blow up the middle east.

So what? The middle east ain't us, so they don't count.

Ron Paul is fraud and JEW HATER and a media HOG!

So what? The question here is whether his foreign policy is better than that of the hapless Bush II. Clearly, the answer is yes.

181 posted on 08/12/2010 1:03:25 PM PDT by Erskine Childers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 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