Skip to comments.John Roberts, Big Government Scumbag - Dave Souter is BACK
Posted on 06/28/2012 1:50:25 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
I never saw this coming - Roberts lied through his teeth at his hearings and now we have another stealth socialist Democrat on the court - the new David Souter.
Pray for America. Personally, I think we're toast.
We deserve this.
That being said, read my tagline, and my profile.
The new reality... if it was touched by a bush it is evil.
I need to see the lightning bolts from heaven.
They’re long overdue.
I dunno..... My faith is wavering.
Just another car in the long train of abuses. The Founders tell us what we can do with that train.
I dont know what the hell got into Roberts this session. When conservative federalist John Roberts votes with Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, while squishy justice Anthony Kennedy publishes a scathing dissent and says Obamacare should have been struck down in its entirety, I feel like Im in the Twilight Zone.
I harshly criticized Ann Coulter when she was on the warpath against Roberts and insisted he was another Souter. Her adoring fans here balked whenever I questioned Princess Ann. The funny thing is this latest session might have actually vindicated her about Roberts, but now her fan club has gone underground because they finally had to accept their true conservative warrior is a Romneybot who fought tooth and nail to nominate him over conservative candidates. Only took them 4 years to admit it. lol
But really lets look at the track record of GOP presidents. Bush gave us Roberts and tried to give us Harriet Miers. His father gave us Souter. Reagan gave us Sandra Day OConnor. Ford gave us John Paul Stevens. Strict constructionist lawyer Nixon gave Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and chief justice in title only Warren Burger.
So much for those conservative judicial appointments paraded about every four years as THE reason to support the lesser evil... even if a GOP president DOES appoint a judge who starts off as a reliable constitutional conservative, theres no way to stop them from evolving over the next 30 years.
Were pretty much screwed as long as federal judges are lifetime appointees who cannot be held accountable for their actions.
Thanks for the “Roberts is a Scumbag” vanity. WAY too many “Roberts is a genius” posts going up recently.
Yes we are toast. I’m absolutely positive that if the Republicans take the White House and both houses of Congress there’ll be a lot of bluff and bluster, but they will never have the guts to repeal this.
Conservatism is dead in the country, and this decision killed it.
I am optimistic by nature, but today I believe Obamacare is the final nail in the coffin.
Roberts’ integrity was established by that act. Roberts had no authority to vet Obama, but he has an obligation as an officer of the court to report felonies. He knows that Obama solicited campaign contributions based upon his eligibility, an eligibility he never personally confirmed. Obama never claimed to be a natural born citizen. That was the subterfuge. But Obama lied when he took the oath to honor the Constitution. Until it is amended, Obama's self-prolaimed naturalized citizen status violates Article II Section 1. Whether to go-along-to-get-along, or there are still secrets in the Clinton's cache of raw FBI reports is not relevant. Roberts never was an originalist, as the media claimed. Who is so naive as to believe anything reported by the media, mainstream of not?
Everyone is pissed off, I get that. I’m not happy about it but I never put much faith in SCOTUS reversing what was (and remains) the law of the land. Take a few days to ventilate, then do yourself a favor and actually READ what Justice Roberts wrote. You may still not like or agree with it, but it’s impossible to be against judicial activism from the Left and then angry when it doesn’t happen from the Right.
Unfortunately, I did see this coming. Chief Justice Roberts is a coward (also see alternative explanation, below). He didn’t choose to do his constitutional responsibility back in January 2009 — to examine the qualifications of the president-elect before administering the oath of office.
Did you hear that he’s changing the color of the robe for the chief justice — from black to yellow!
Alternative explanation — Once we had a president-elect, in 2008 or 2009, the democrats got some unsavory info on Justice Roberts and threatened to make it public... unless he swore in the president-elect and didn’t cause the democrats any trouble.
If so, what in the seven shades of hello is Justice Roberts doing talking about it being a tax?
If my memory is correct, then Justice Roberts can no longer lay claim to impartial trier of fact because he has just become no better than a middle school referee supporting his playing son's junior varsity basket ball game.
Sorry to insult the many good middle school referees; but, you can understand where I am coming from on this one.
You mean, like the "judicial activism" the cowardly scumbag Roberts exhibited when he told Arizona to take its duly passed immigration law and go pound sand? It is one thing to know who the enemies of America are and get what you expect from them. It is another thing entirely to get stabbed in the back by somebody you thought was a friend.
I don’t like the ruling, but let’s be clear, it’s a narrow and rather hollow Obama victory that actually helps our side to argue it is a tax after all to then come back later and repeal it.
It would have been much worse if either of these two events transpired: the court upheld it based on Commerce Clause grounds OR the court stuck the mandate but not the law.
In fact, the left-wing siate has a good article up about how this frankly in the long-term benefits the conservative side more based upon the Commerce Clause issue. The tax issue is a really small argument and frankly isn’t a major expansion of federal power since it can be easily fixed in later rulings. If they had upheld it based on Commerce Clause grounds, it would have been such.
IT’S STILL A BAD RULING!!!! But, about the least bad it could be upholding the law with much good for our side as well.
It’s far from over. Don’t give up hope.
Dream on...it's over, the march to socialism is now complete.
There are threads on FR today, extolling Roberts’ virtues. It’s sickening.
I’m in AZ. So now, not only have we been told we are no longer sovereign in even a pretend-fashion (even Sheriff Joe is having a hard time figuring out a way around the latest blow). Now all of the 20-30-50 million illegals (if you count chain migration) can replace the “units” over 70 who get sick and must take the anti-Christ’s goobt pill.
The cowardly maggot “flubbed” the swearing-in and went to do it in a secret (probably Bohemian Grove-style) room with no peasant witnesses. Surely he’s been in on this overthrow all along.
Your tag line is wonderful, and it’s true, the Lord absolutely does forgive and answer prayer. But I have to be honest right now and admit that I’m weak. God forgive me, I absolutely hate these people.
I'm feeling a little less bad than I did on 9/11. But when it's all said and done, more people will die per day because of ObamaCare than died on 9/11.
I don't believe Roberts was threatened or bribed. BB and I discussed ~couple months back how it's ALWAYS, ALWAYS the conservatives that flip. Never does a Marxist flip. So, the liberals have a 5-4 SCOTUS majority, period. There is NOTHING, not even ritualistic suicide Roberts can do to unf**k the pooch on this one. Roberts (and his family and friends) needs to be treated like the grotesque walking abortion he is.
The POTUS election being held this November is the most important POTUS election in the nation's history, IMO. This is war and the time to not treat politics as such is long gone. And we have the architect of ObamaCare as the GOP POTUS nominee. And in this truly f**ked up world we live in, this betrayal by Roberts (who I will no longer refer to by name, but, by the moniker “CJ Felcher” going forward) helps Glove.
That being said, and this post may very well get pulled for what I'm about to write, but I'm writing it anyway:
1. The time has come for Einsatzgruppen against ALL liberals.
2. Hopefully, no ones around to help CJ Felcher the next time he has a seizure. Personally, I'd rather go on a cross country road trip with Jerry Sandusky than piss on CJ Felcher if he was on fire. And you can quote me on that.
But tell me how you really feel.
You make an excellent point, and one I'd honestly forgotten about.
I’m openly wishing death on enemies of my country.
We really need a SUPER MAJORITY in both Houses. A tough task, but we have to try as hard as we can to help more conservative, Republican candidates win the next election.
Volunteer, donate if you can afford it, write letters to editors, call talk shows, contact conservatives on your email list, and talk with your family and friends personally. (Don’t waste too much time on drones, as Mark Levin calls them, but at least inform those with an open mind. Maybe they’ll come around later.)
“Ann Coulter when she was on the warpath against Roberts and insisted he was another Souter. ..”
I wonder what Roberts did to make her against him.
This week is the first time I saw Roberts go left.
Now, if CJ Felcher is sh*tcanned, that's a different story. IMHO, CJ Felcher is as much an enemy of this country as Obama is. He, his family and his friends must be destroyed. And you can interpret "destroyed" any way you like, but if you look at my posts from today, you know exactly what I mean. I have more respect for Jerry Sandusky than CJ Felcher, I really do.
That is a major problem.
Coulter is wrong when she says that liberal Democrat presidents never "accidentally" appointed a conservative. They'd have fewer opportunities than Republicans in recent decades to make appointments, but they've had their own slip ups. Kennedy appointed Byron White as a favor to big labor (he was a lifelong Democrat and big DNC donor) and the guy turned out to be a closet conservative. Woodrow Wilson appointed James Clark McReynolds because he was some nasty southern Jew-hating bigot like himse, but McReynolds turned out to be a staunch conservative who was one of the "four horsemen" who consistently struck down FDR's socialist New Deal legislation. However, the big difference here is that NONE of the RAT judges "started out" as reliable liberals and drifted more and more to right over their years on the court, but plenty of GOP appointments have drifted the other way. There's that old saying from Winston Churchill about a man being a bleeding heart liberal at 20 and a staunch conservative at age 40. With federal judges, it's the opposite. They may have a track record as faithful conservatives at age 40, but be freakin' marxists by the time they're 75. Some of the prominent examples are Justices John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun.
One of the reasons I suspect is that they keep appointing federal appellate court judges in about 70-80% of the SCOTUS appointments. These guys get drunk on power with their lifetime federal jobs and believe they're on an mission to solve social ills in America. I don't know why we do this, we're one of the few countries in the world that chooses Governors instead of federal legislators as President most of the time because we want someone from "outside Washington", so why do we want a professional federal official to serve on SCOTUS? They should elevate more judges from state supreme courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, IMO. Of course, David Souter (former NH Supreme Court justice) is an notable example against my argument, but we don't have a lot of state supreme court judges to compare him to. If I had been in Bush's shoes, I would have elevated Clarance Thomas to CJ and named Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul G. Cantero to replace Thomas as associate justice.
>> The POTUS election being held this November is the most important POTUS election in the nation's history, IMO. This is war and the time to not treat politics as such is long gone. <<
I've been hearing this "most important Presidential election of our lifetime" stuff since I first voted in 2000, so it's worn thin. I'm told THIS election will tip the balance of SCOTUS every election. I think even in a worst case scenario, Romney's POTUS nominees wouldn't be as bad as Obama, but even if Romney makes a sincere effort to appoint a reliable conservative justice, we're left with the "evolving" problem. I really think the only solution is to amend the constitution and have a fully elected SCOTUS like we have on the state level in several states, but since that's unlikely to ever become law, a compromise solution might be to continue letting the President appoint judges with Senate approval, but give Americans (depending on what federal judicial circuit they live in) the power of retention. That way a turncoat appointed in 2005 could kicked out of his SCOTUS seat in 2015, and so on. Any Republican appointee who "evolved" would face ramifications from voters, especially if they're from a conservative region.
>> Ann Coulter when she was on the warpath against Roberts and insisted he was another Souter. .. I wonder what Roberts did to make her against him. This week is the first time I saw Roberts go left. <<
Good question. Between this and the AZ decision, I wouldn't place Roberts as "another Souter" yet, but if he keeps this up, he'll certainly be another Sandra Day O'Connor at best. What caused Coulter to go into attack mode against him in 2005 is beyond me. His past history as a member of the Federalist Society, Rehnquist clerk, etc. was certainly better than anything we had from Souter, which were just "assurances" from some blue-blooeded New Hampshire RINOs that he was a "good Republican". But a lot of conservatives backed Charlie Crist for Governor of Florida in 2006 and could have never predicted him becoming a turncoat liberal, either. Fortunately for me, Coulter's groupies would be rubbing this in my face and saying "I told you so", but they've quieted down ever since their hero hitched her wagon to GOProud and Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries.
The fact that you have to go back 50 years to find a Democrat SCOTUS appointee who ended up being more conservative than the president thought proves the point. As I posted a few months ago, only one of the eight Dem SCOTUS appointees since 1952 have ended up being more conservative than the president thought (Byron White, appointed by JFK in 1962), while 9 of the 18 GOP appointees since 1952 have been more liberal than the president thought (I’m not counting Roberts there, since his record was about what was expected until yesterday). That’s a 12.5% disappointment rate for Democrats and a 50% disappointment rate for Republicans. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2849024/posts?page=108#108
As for naming governors or state judges instead of federal appelate judges, I don’t think that would improve our odds of picking conservatives who won’t move to the Dark Side. Earl Warren was a governor, and (as you mentioned) Souter was a state judge (although he did serve a while as a federal Circuit judge as well). It seems to me that picking someone with no federal judicial experience makes it likelier that we’d miss a red flag that would have come up during his service as a federal judge (or during the prior confirmation hearing). Then again, I think that U.S. Senators with legal backgrounds and who have served in the Judiciary Committee could make good SCOTUS nominees, and if Ted Cruz is elected to the Senate from Texas I’d like to see him in the Court some day (Sen. Mike Lee of UT could be a good candidate down the line as well).
Every-time I am told that we will all die (the end of the USA) if Romney loses I recall being told we will all die if McCain loses in 2008. In fact I remember being told we will all die if the Republican House passes a debt limit extension. Talk about 9 lives.
My sentiments exactly!
>God forgive me, I absolutely hate these people.
Forgive them, and God will forgive you.
Matthew 6:14-15 makes it clear you won’t go to heaven without forgiving them.
I used to work with an ex-con who when sentenced to 14 months in prison, had it set in his mind that when he got our, he was going to murder his ex-fiance.
Someone got to him, and got him started on praying for his enemies. So he prayed for his fiance every day.
At first, it was quite mechanical, his prayers for this woman who in his eyes needed to die.
His heart softened over time, and during that time in prison, as he continued to pray for her, the murderous feelings toward her left.
He was let out of prison a new man, and moved on.
Jesus told us to pray for our enemies, but I don’t remember where he said WHY to do so.
I have just given you an excellent reason to pray for Obama and the Communists. Plainly, so you can ...
1) obey Jesus
2) be a child of the most high, who sends BLESSING on the just and the unjust, just as the Father sends rain to the just and the unjust
Now, go and do likewise.
I don't think it does, since in the modern era, the RATs have had far less opportunities than Republicans to name SCOTUS judges. They haven't even named a CJ in 60 years. If the RATs president were appointed as many judges as the GOP, there'd be a far great opportunity for slip-ups. It's:
Obama - 2
Clinton - 2
Carter - 0
Johnson - 2
JFK - 2
GWB - 2 (1 CJ)
GHWB - 2
Reagan - 4 (1 CJ)
Ford - 1
Nixon - 4 (1 CJ)
Eisenhower - 5
If the RATs had 3 times as many judges, I think they'd be bound to have far more slip-ups than Byron White. Plus, alot of the GOP duds didn't become defacto Dems (Souter is only example of that since the mid 70s), but they were right-of-center judges who voted conservative far less than expected (O'Connor, etc.)
I think the biggest problem is the "evolving justice" issue. You're right, Roberts was a pretty reliable conservative for the last 6 years, but if this most recent session is a sign of things to come, we're in trouble. We can't afford to have Roberts go wobbly on us. And I've never seen a RAT justice go wobbly or "evolve" into a conservative. White was a fairly moderate right-of-center justice throughout his tenure on the court. Blackmun, on the other hand, started out as a "Minnesota twin" of Warren Burger, and ended up as the court's most liberal member when he retired in 1994.
One thing I will say is a bad factor on how to choose a judge: the concept that it doesn't matter what their personal views or record is, as long as their "judicial philosophy" is a "strict constructionist" or "originalist" or whatever they're calling it now (I never heard of this term "originalist" until a bunch of freepers started demanding GWB appoint one). Most of the "strict constructionists" that Nixon appointed came back to bite him in the butt big time. I want a lifelong, principled CONSERVATIVE, not some judge whose personal views are unknown but assures the President he is a "strict constructionists" Hell, I think Souter promised Bush that too. Anyone would say that if it meant a lifetime slot on SCOTUS.
I know that Republican presidents have made a lot more SCOTUS appointments than have Democrat presidents in recent decades, which is why I specifically included a *percentage* of appopintments since 1952 that have been disappointing for each party. Since 1952, Republican presidents have appointed 18 Supreme Court Justices, and at least half of them ended up being a lot more liberal than the president suspected: Warren (Ike), Brennan (Ike), Stewart (Ike), Blackmun (Nixon), Powell (Nixon), Stevens (Ford), OConnor (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan) and Souter (GHW Bush). During the same period, Democrat presidents have appointed 8 Supreme Court Justices, and only 1 of them ended up being more conservative than the president suspected (Byron White, appointed by JFK in 1962). So even if we consider Justice Roberts not to be a disappointment (I hope yesterday’s ruling was an aberration), 50% of GOP SCOTUS appointments over the past 60 years have been disappointing to the party, while only 12.5% of Democrat appointments have been disappointing to Democrats.50% is a heck of a lot more than 12.5%.
Warren (Ike) -- Was expected to be a "centrist", turned out to be a rabid liberal activist
Brennan (Ike) -- he was a card-carrying Democrat from New England at the time Eisenhower appointed him. That would have told me right away that the guy is probably a liberal and not to trust him. Why Ike appointed the guy is beyond me. Maybe he wanted to give the Dems a token appointment so they'd confirm one of his guys.
Stewart (Ike) -- Was a squishy moderate Republican expected to a centrist, and pretty much did exactly that on the court.
Blackmun (Nixon) -- He was considered a fairly good conservative at the time of his appointment and expected to vote like like Burger (as Alito was considered to be Scalia-like) He started off good, went off the reservation during Roe v. Wade, and became more and more liberal after that, until he was a super liberal by his retirement in the 90s.
Powell (Nixon) -- He was sent to the Senate as a "package deal" with Rehnquist, the idea being it would be a compromise where the conservatives get a SCOTUS seat (Rehnquist) and the moderates get one as well (Powell). He was expected to vote like a moderate Republican, and pretty much did exactly that on the court.
Stevens (Ford) -- Another expected "centrist" who "evolved" into a flaming left socialist during his time on the court. He moved further and further left after Rehnquist became CJ.
OConnor (Reagan) -- Reagan sold her as a confirmable conservative, social conservatives didn't trust her and didn't like the appointment (had FR been around in '81, a bunch of freepers would have whined "this is NOT the time to talk about social issues!" and "we need to stand behind OUR president") Their fears were correct, she usually voted conservative but was lousy on social issues and couldn't be trusted.
Kennedy (Reagan) -- He was appointed hastily after the Dems had destroyed Reagan's two previous nominees, both outspoken conservatives. He was a low-key, unknown who was expected to vote moderate-to-conservtive on the bench. He's pretty much done exactly that.
Souter (GHW Bush) -- Was considered to be "Bork without a paper trail", a bunch of Democrat Senators figured he was a closet conservative and opposed his nomination. Republicans bought the idea he that he was a "confirmable conservative" that the Dems couldn't find dirt on. Both sides were wrong, he turned out to be a screwy liberal.
Overall, Warren, Blackmun, Stevens, and Souter turned out to be significantly different than was assumed about them during their confirmation, while Brennan, Stewart, Powell and Kennedy were never solid conservatives (they ranged from fairly conservative to liberal douchebag), but they were never advertised as conservatives in the first place and their voting record was not surprising (again, why Ike would knowingly appoint a liberal Democrat from New England is beyond me). Reagan was warned in advance about O'Connor, she raised some red flags, but choose to ignore it and appoint her anyway. Other than that, she voted as expected on other issues.
Still, 4 renegade GOP appointments vs. 1 renegade Dem appointment is still too much. I really think GOP presidents like Nixon and both Bush's placed too much focus on "judicial philosophy" instead of looking at the person's career and personal values (Bush also thought Harriet Miers would be trustworthy for that reason!), and it looks like Ike didn't even TRY during ANY his 5 appointments to name a reliable conservative (Ike's nominees were disastrous overall, I can't imagine Adali Stevenson would do any worse) . And #1 problem is still lifetime federal appointments where these guys get drunk on power. I suspect that's a big factor why none of the Dem appointees "evolved" and decided 30 years later they'd like to decease their authority and the court's reach.
It won't be the last, once you go over to the dark side, you don't return.
I think you overstate the degree to which Brennan, Stewart, Powell and Kennedy voted as expected by the president who nominated them.
Ike certainly did *not* expect Brennan (who, BTW, was from New Jersey, not New England) to become arguably the most liberal Justice in history. Ike wanted to nominate a Catholic Democrat from the Northeast for political reasons, and thought Brennan would be a moderate-to-conservative Justice because he had been appointed to the NJ state Superior Court and Supreme Court by Republican Governor Alfred Driscoll and because Ike’s AG, Herbert Brownell, had been impressed with a speech that Brennan gave about criminal matters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.. So Brennan certainly belongs on the list of appointees who ended up being far more liberal than the GOP president thought.
Potter Stewart was expected to be a moderate-to-conservative Justice, and started out as such, and dissented in Griswold and Miranda. But then he joined the liberals in the ridiculous Eisenstadt v. Baird case (which, after Griswold forced states that banned the sale of contraception to exempt married people from the prohibition (due to the unique nature of the marriage relationship and penumbras and whatnot), used the Equal Protection Clause to strike down a state law that allowed contraception to be sold only to married persons—I swear I’m not making it up), and then voted with the majority in Furman (declaring the death penalty to be “cruel and unusual punishment”) and Roe v. Wade. Stewart certainly “grew in office,” almost as much as Blackmun.
Lewis Powell was presumed to be a conservative corporate lawyer and became the most centrist of centrists, although he certainly leaned to the left (he voted with the majority in Roe and his compromise opinion in Bakke was a disgrace). I’d count him as a disappointment.
As for Kennedy, no one expected him to become a defender of Roe, or to require special rights for gays, or to discover a “privacy” right to homosexual sodomy, or to strike down both the death penaly and mandatory life sentences to murderers solely because they were under 18 years old. Year in and year out, Kennedy has been far less conservative than President Reagan, or anyone else who weighed his nomination, assumed he would be.
Thanks for sharing that, ROTB. I know that’s what I need to do. God bless.
You are welcome!
Check out my profile page if you’d like ...
... since it has a lot of verses on prayer (how, why, certainty, faith, ...).
Damn. Well in the literal sense I agree. I would sooner visit Mount Rushmore with a pedophile football coach than I would go out of my way to save the life of a traitor. I don't think I would have been this angry at Kennedy. To have HIM write the solid dissent while Roberts went the other way is madness. I'd talk football with coach McFeely and smile at Obama's face and shake his hand and say "pleased to meet you Mr. President" about 100 times before I'd do anything but flip the bird to Roberts. Nothing feels worse than betrayal.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS the conservatives that flip. Never does a Marxist flip
It's true with regular voters as well. Inner city democrats almost never break ranks. GOP suburbanites and rural people vote democrat all time. The left does not tolerate dissent. Look up "three line whip", that's that kind of mindset we need to have, on everything.
I know with judicial appointments there is a lot of beating around the bush cause we like to pretend the courts are supposed to be "above" "politics" (which is a lot of bull if you ask me). But If I was the President making a SCOTUS appointment, I'm strapping the guy to a polygraph (I'm not of fan of their efficacy but you get my point) and flat out asking:
"So Roe V Wade is bull, you'd overturn that right?" "Forcing people to buy health insurance, that's fascism right? Not legally permitted, correct?" "Do you swear on your children's life to uphold these principles we've been discussing?" and unless I got the answers I wanted and was sure he was being honest with me his resume would go in a circular file.
And if that gets you some half-retarded sycophant who wants nothing more than that the prestige that comes with the position then so be as it long as he votes the right way.
I get what you are saying. And it’s true every election is hyped up.
But I can’t see how 4 more years of Obama would leave us better off in any way even if Romney and Boner fail to repeal this (or just don’t as many seen to believe they are outright lying and have no such intention).
A justice quits or dies, maybe Romney effs up and puts another Roberts in his place or maybe Romney is an a-hole and appoints a Sotomayor on purpose cause he really is a liberal ideologue and not just a corporate establishment RINO like Bush (albeit with a troubling social liberal past that Bush lacked).
Obama erases all doubt of what would happen. Obama wins and Obamacare stays, maybe forever.
Unless in the unlikely event a GOP Senate would block his choice if Scalia trips in the shower in the next 4 years take every 5-4 that went our way and turn it around. Different America? If Stevens quits there goes our last chance to flip a seat for a while.
Even if the worst is true I’ve got more than enough incentive to vote Republican this year.
Hell, having that bitch have ONE-TERMER next to his name is reason enough on it’s own. Spite. Spite. Spite.
Stevens quit two years ago. Maybe you meant Ginsburg or Breyer.
Look at it this way then , Romney has to fear us. Obama never will. You don't want a liberal like Romney to think he has Republicans vote ‘in the bag’ because you know how much damage he can do with the Republican official stamp of approval. Remember 2007 and 2008.
You are perhaps forgetting that when elections are close, the democrats have greater effect because they can cheat a win. A soros owned company in Spain is counting a significant portion of OUR VOTES, so expect there to be even rgeater potential for cheating this time. And this may be the LAST TIME you get the chance to vote to remove the little barry bastard commie and his holder-ons and czars and fascist regulators.
There is something you are forgetting
Republicans need to EARN my support. Feel free to give them yours for free.
And how will you now switching to asshat insult mode change the reality of what is sitting atop the government and will end the Republic if he gets four more years? Stick your ‘feel free to give them yours for free’ tantrum troops self-righteousness up your darkened mental portal. We The People either work to save what we can or we insk into the chaos the globalists have planned for you and me and your childrena nd grandchildren. You need a new screen name, ‘cause you sure aren’t sick of the obamanoid libs or you would be working to oust the vermin instead of insulting those who are workign on some way, any way to rid US of Holder and the little barry bastard commie boy now assassinating the Republic through their minions and supporters like JOhn Roberts.
I don't support liberalism just because it acquires the Republican party name, You can if that suits you.
My screen name isn't GOP4Ever. It never will be.
Okay, so now I list your anme in the tantrum troops list. Fine, enjoy your self-righteous stint. You’ve probably earned it ...
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.