Roberts Subverted Reagan (Backstabbing Establishment Republican No Friend Of Conservatives Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/17/05 | Joseph Farah

[tame]

Farah's too over the top about Roberts to be taken seriously though.

Even if true, this does not discount certain red flags that all conservatives should be concerned about.

[Sandy]

Roberts was an insider then defending the indefensible policies of the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department that was out to thwart Reagan initiatives.

Oh for crying out loud. He was 26 years old and a few months into his first real job. Yeah, a real insider.

[rambo316]

That is his first amendment right to do so and Farah looks at it from the stand point of:
"Is America being over taxed?", "Have Americans lost a lot of their freedoms guaranteed under our Constitution?", "Are we appeasing terrorists?", "Are we appeasing Communists?", and finally, "Why are Americans being indoctrinated with the fallacy that America is a democracy?"

[Sandy]

I haven't learned anything about Roberts that concerns me yet. What I've seen so far, I like. I'm withholding approval until the RKBA/FOPA memos appear though.

[conservativecorner]

"I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," he wrote to his co-conspirator Starr. "Weyerich [sic] is of course no friend of ours, but it won't help to stir up the influential contributors to this volume, and any comment by the AG will simply highlight the fact that we have yet to take a position" on some of the issues raised by the book.

RINO POS BUMP!!

[kittymyrib]

Bush #43 better not be sticking us with another Souter. That pathetic choice for the Supreme Court is his father's judicial stinking legacy. I'm becoming very leary of this "highly qualified" nominee who seems to be on both sides of many issues.

[KeyWest]

Weyrich has been off the wall at times so I have no problem with someone distancing themselves from them. I would have done just what Roberts did.

I would love to see the context here.

Too often, the person becomes the issue not the issue. If Reagan did as Farar wanted, you better believe the MSM would not stay with just one issue but his whole body of work and try to paint Reagan with the same broad brush and pin all of Weyrich's ideas on Reagan.

This is getting tiresome. Anyone going back thorough an individuals posts here on FR would come across inconsistencies and downright stupidity (based on an incomplete understanding of the issue). I have not seen that with Roberts. He has stood up better than we would.

[fishbabe]

which means ann coulter was right...everyone else was singing roberts praises,she was saying,'hey,folks,he is a frigging liberal...It seems she was right on the money......

[joesbucks]

Virtually every pro-family and conservative group with which I am familiar has proclaimed that President Bush kept his promise by nominating Judge Roberts. Which only proves they are being uncharateristically careless.

Let me put it this way. If Roberts was nominated by a democrat, these same pro-family and conservative groups would be after his scalp and in grand scale. I'm saying if the a democrat nominated the same John Roberts as has GW Bush. I haven't quite figured out why they would circle the wagons on Roberts when nominated by Bush, yet would be very vocal in opposition if the nomination would have been made by a dem.

[WoodstockCat]

I invite you to look at the Jay Sekulow interview on Hugh Hewitt's website from last night. I think that Jay has a very good read on what kind of judge Roberts will be.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I consider the leftists who have arrogated the name unto themselves as "neo-libs"."

The accurate term is SOCIALISTS, not "neo-libs". The SOCIALISTS long ago hi-jacked the Democrat party for their own purposes.

[WoodstockCat]

You really think the same Bush who renominated staunch conservatives to fill a bullpen of Supreme Court nominees is itching to sell us out?

[The Lumster]

It just means that I can think for myself and not follow along like a sheep

Now you've done it. We can't have this. You are hereby dishonorably discharged from the Regiment of Righteous Republicans! If you do not support Bush 110% then you are obviously a terrorist, or at least a flaming liberal

[over3Owithabrain]

Can you sum it up for us a little please?

[Tom Thumbs]

The accurate term is SOCIALISTS, not "neo-libs". The SOCIALISTS long ago hi-jacked the Democrat party for their own purposes.

---

Yes, correct, however, the left has succeeded in marginalizing anyone who accurately characterizes them. If you point out that the left ("Liberals", modern Democrats, etc.) are socialists, marxists, or (heaven forbid!) communists, you will be dismissed as a kook.

This is of course a disgrace, but, it's what we've got on our plate. So, since they've come up with a term of derision ("neo-cons"), I figure turnabout is fair play, so, I call THEM "neo-libs".

If it confuses them, if it galls them, if it pisses them off, well... good.

[msnimje]

Joseph Farah wrote an article stating adulterers should be murdered. (Jan 30, 2003) His view is that Clara Harris should be given a medal from repeatedly running over her cheating husband with their Mercedes.

Most people would agree adultery is wrong but a suggestion like this is no different than that of the Islmofacists.

Should clear thinking people really be at all interested in what he thinks about John Roberts (or anything else for that matter?)

[PGalt]

Thanks for your post, Jim. It puts the article into context.

[Sensei Ern]

My biggest problem with some of this "research" on Roberts is that it goes way, way back. I mean, 1981? These guys, Roberts and Starr were what, in their mid-20s?

I agree. When I was young, I was pro-abortion, pro-sex-anyway-you-can-get-it, and was a drunkard. Then, I was saved by Jesus Christ. THose three, with other wrong thinkings, changes, almost over night.

You read some of my writings from 20+ years ago and you would not have the same picture of me.

[myself6]

Wrong.

More people now understand and accept that the democrats are socialists.

This is the tact we should take and WILL take. The truth is an incredible force and the best weapon in this case.

People ARE accepting the truth about the libs. Never be afraid the call the dems socialists. That is what they are.

[The_Eaglet]

My biggest problem with some of this "research" on Roberts is that it goes way, way back. I mean, 1981? These guys, Roberts and Starr were what, in their mid-20s?

It complements more recent findings.

Thanks for posting this, goldstategop.