Was John Roberts Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare?

Did John Roberts change his vote to protect his family secret?  This post seems to lay out a very damning chain of events.

Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.

In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident.

In 2005 the NY Times began investigating Roberts life as a matter of his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush. The Times was shortly accused of trying to unseal the adoption papers and intending to violate the anonymity of the adoption process... however there is more to the story.

Drudge did an article in 2005
http://patterico.com/2005/08/04/drudge-says-new-york-times-is-inves...

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”

Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: “Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue.”

Were the Children Adopted from Ireland?

This is not clear ... -- the Associated Press reports that they were "adopted from Latin America." This seems a bit puzzling, in light of the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1

TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts's (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”

How were the Children Adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption.

As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency."2

But was Robert's adoption utilizing "a legal method"?

Apparently the process of adopting Jack involved some stress for John Roberts. According to Dan Klaidman of Newsweek, during the contested 2000 election, Roberts "spent a few days in Florida advising lawyers [for George W. Bush] on their legal strategy," but "he did not play a central role," because " at the time, Roberts was preoccupied with the adoption of his son."

It is now quite evident that the two Children were from Ireland. Even wikipedia references these adoptions at the time of Roberts' confirmation, and indicates that the children were of Irish birth.

However Irish law 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

This would explain the children's origin from a "Latin American country", so as to circumvent Irish law.

Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws -- entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) transporting the children out of Ireland.

Undoubtedly Roberts and his wife spent a great deal of money for this illegal process, circumventing Irish laws and arranging for the transit of two Irish children from separate birth-mothers to a foreign nation. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts' for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as "infants".

Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.

That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, such an inter-country adoption would only come about at great cost, and those who utilize this method are creating a for-profit black market in adoptive children, trafficking across international borders, and doing so from mothers who have not yet given up their children except for that profit. Such actions are creating a very unsavory profit-for-children human trafficking market that even necessitates immediate contact with new birth mothers in dire circumstances to offer financial gain. The entire arrangement is thoroughly predatory, turning children into only financial commodity, and even providing motivation for their birth mothers to give them up! That's an important ethical recognition.

Roberts is not deserving of any sort of respect here, and is only the latest example of people in position believing themselves above the law, beyond scrutiny and exempt from repercussion.

It all now makes sense.

The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media, but also why a sitting Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court would not want this information to become public fodder well into his tenure. Its release and public discussion would discredit Roberts as an impartial judge of the law, and undoubtedly lead to his impeachment.

This also explains why Roberts would have a means to be blackmailed, and why that leverage would still exist even after the institution of ObamaCare.

... And it has led to flipping the swing-vote on ObamaCare, which fundamentally changed the relationship between citizen and government, making us de facto property of the state, with our relative worth in care and maintenance able to be determined by the government. Essentially it was a coup without firing a shot, much less needing even an Amendment to the Constitution.

And it is consistent with Obama's Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed <divorce> records in order to win election.

The post by Trip and discussion generated by it can be found:

http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?topic=113.0

Views: 8709

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This makes perfect sense to me.

If Obama was behind it and he is removed as well, then that means Biden gets to make the appointment. We still get a left wing loon.

Agreed that Biden is not desirable, and the lesser of two evils, but he doesn't come with the visceral hatred of America and the saud wahabi-moslem baggage that informs bo's thoughts, words, deeds so violently.

YES!!! Now you're getting it.. thank you very much!  That's why 'hitting two birds with one stone is so important !"  Good Hunting!

That's not true. If Obama gets impeached everything that he has done will be nullified. Only the house has the power of impeachment. They do not need the Senate to do it. It would put out everyone in Obama's administration also including Mr. Biden. You would then see Romney as our next President. That was how it was supposed to be in the first place. Since we all know Obama didn't win that election anyway.

Obama and Biden and well as Pelosi and host of others should be criminally charged. That would be more appropriate in this case. I can't imagine in that scenario that anything they did would be legal.

I hope all avenues are examined and acted upon.  Lance Armstrong got taken to the cleaners for appearing one way and not being that high a caliber of athlete then lied about the drugs.

And how does all this keep standing.  A sport is of more consequence than Hitler II?

Yes, that's why we need an honest judiciary and we don't have one of those either.

Forward.......to real hope and change.

Yes, but you need to remember that the House can only bring charges, it's the Senate that imposes the penalty. The House will, the Senate won't!

Yes, I agree.  When I was not suffering from my bleeding eyes (over the ruling), I figure Roberts family had been threatened. 

I've been saying this for over a year now, and now finding others agreeing with me.

RSS

ONE NATION UNDER GOD

ALERT ALERT

 After Years Of Stagnation Under Obama 
Household Income Hits 50-Year High

Image result for money

Former President Barack Obama got plenty of praise for shepherding us through the recovery from the 2008 economic crisis. However, those on Main Street, USA, knew the truth — things weren’t any better than they had been when George W. Bush left office.

As The Weekly Standard reported in 2016, median household income when Obama came into office in 2009 was $56,731. In 2015, six years into his presidency, that number was $56,516 — a decrease of just over $200.

By the time he left office, it’s true that media household income had risen to $59,471 — but that was essentially the same as it had been in December, 2007, at the end of the “Great Recession” and just a few weeks before Obama took office, when it was $59,549.

So, how’s The Donald doing?

Well, as Investor’s Business Daily reported, a new study from Sentier Research found that the median household income in April was $61,483 — a 50-year high.

That’s up from $59,471 in January of 2017.

The firm tracks income using census data and adjusts for inflation — so even a slightly weaker dollar doesn’t account for the increase.

Donald Trump Jr.   @DonaldJTrumpJr  

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump … And He's Getting Credit For It!!! 

Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump, And He's Getting Credit For It

A new report shows that the median household income has climbed 3% since President Trump took office. It's another sign of a strong economy, and at least one poll shows the public credits Trump for...

That’s great news for the country, but maybe not the best news for Democrats.

“This is just another indication that the economy has notably strengthened under Trump. And polls show that the public’s mood has brightened considerably as a result,” Investor’s Business Daily reported.

“The latest IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index is 53.6. This index has been in positive territory (anything over 50 is optimistic) since Trump took office. The Quality of Life Index, meanwhile, hit a 14-year high in May and the Financial Stress Index is at an all-time low.”

That economic data is followed by a lot of polls that seem to show that the “blue wave” expected in the November midterms breaking and rolling back into the sea.

A new Reuters poll found that a generic Republican would beat a generic Democrat by six points. Back in March, the Democrats were up by nine points. A CBS poll found that Democrats had a two-point advantage on the generic ballot — hardly “wave” material.

The CBS poll also found that 68 percent of Americans believed Trump’s policies deserved at least some of the credit for the economic situation, with 35 percent saying he deserved a “great deal” of the credit.

Sixty-four percent of respondents rated the economy as “somewhat good” or “very good.” In a CNN poll, 57 percent of voters said that “things are going well in the U.S.” In February, that was 49 percent.

Perhaps the most important figure: Under Obama, when Gallup asked whether it was a good time to find “a quality job in the U.S.,” the highest number that administration ever achieved was 45 percent. Under Trump, that number is 67 percent — the highest number in the 17-year history of the poll.

While Trump’s personal numbers haven’t seen the same bounce, they’re still up — and that’s the important thing. Thanks to the relentless campaign of personal attacks against him, Trump’s stated approval rating has always been a lot lower than it probably is.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Hillary Clinton. For all of the personal barbs and attacks, 2016 ultimately came down to the economy. So will 2018 — and that’s not good news for the Democrats.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service