Author Topic: was Roberts' adoption of two children used to blackmail his Obamacare vote?  (Read 13036 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
I found a link to this in a user comment on a Zero Hedge article, and I have to admit this is the first I've heard of this theory.  I think somebody in the regime definitely has something on Roberts, whether it's this or something else.

http://www.libertycaucus.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1e9219842f26c3a8f0c8a656d733e81e&topic=113.msg688#msg688


Quote
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-investigating-robertss-adoption-records/

                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 Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline trapeze

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Hippies smell bad. Go away, hippie.
Very believable except for this:

Quote
The circumstances of these two adoptions explain not only why this would be overlooked by an overall sympathetic media,

I don't remember the media being sympathetic towards the nomination of Roberts or any other GWB nominee for the SCOTUS. My memory is that they were hostile and I find it hard to believe that they would have just sat on a story like this when they could have used it to destroy the nomination or to get him impeached.

I also find it hard to believe that if this revelation is so damaging to Roberts it would not have been used more than once. Remember that Citizens United was decided in 2010. Why wasn't this blackmail used in that instance? And that one example only covers O'Bongo. Certainly if the media had this info they could have either used it or given it to Democrats to use against Roberts in Heller.

In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Certainly good points. Perhaps Occam's Razor dictates that the real answer is simply that Roberts is another statist, big government mandarin of the Beltway political order.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Dan

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 873
  • Still hatin' those Libiots!
I  agree the "sympathetic media" angle rings quite hollow, and although  I  can't account for poor  vetting  by the Bush folks,  team O can easily be scrutinized thusly...
They  are as patient as they  are ruthless. Whenever they dug up  such dirt, by looking at sealed records,  which clearly Bush didn't, they  saw they could own him. Citizens United is small  potatoes. That addressed money going into elections (which may or  may  not  have been successful) for candidates who  would support and vote for policy. Obama  care is policy.  It is direct control of 1/7th to  1/5th of the economy, depending on who  ya ask. It is the cornerstone of Socialism and the basis for their buying power.
Heller? The 2d Amendment is attacked on every level anyway. Some jurisdictions will likely never submit,  and they  know it may  come to a fight. I think  incrementalism works better for them on that issue.
Are they  that patient? To have sat on it for so  long? If many reporters had it, some would not  have had teh long view to do  so, I think. It's possible that, for the narcissist's signature legislation,  they pulled out  all the stops and didn't have this until  it  was crunch-time. . They probably dug into every SCOTUS member who  may have been wobbly or known to be the type  to  strike it  down. As an aside, I wonder if  this  is  about the time Boehner climbed into  O's lap? He's been so compliant I can't help but think they  got some dirt on him.
On the flip  side,  Robert's  vote was hailed as a stroke  of genius by Thomas Sowell,  actually. An aspect I hadn't  heard elsewhere. By calling it  a tax, a revenue raising bill,  it  opened the  door to  more  challenges on teh constitutionality b/c all revenue-raising bills must originate in the House, and O-care was a Senate bill!
Of course,  G may  be right in that Occam usually has the  last word.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.

The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.

The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.

If the media knew, they might have kept quiet because they were told to - because having a blackmail-able supreme court judge would ultimately come in handy. Or it could be that the illegal NSA surveillance turned up something only Obama and top Democrats knew.  Something very similar happened during the reign of FDR when one judge who was voting against the New Deal suddenly, without warning, and to everyone's detriment, started voting to uphold FDR's crap.
Old tricks are the best ones so they say.  However, at this point its moot.  And Robert's, blackmailed or no, will hopefully meet the reward of a traitor.


Offline trapeze

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Hippies smell bad. Go away, hippie.

The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.

Which is one of the reasons I don't make it a point to tune in to Beck every day (I will almost always tune in Limbaugh, for example). Beck is on my "listen if I have nothing better to do" list because of his penchant for hyperbole. Hannity is on the same list for different reasons. But they both come down to credibility. If Beck and Hannity were dependably credible as spokesmen for conservatives I would listen everyday. The problem is that, while I believe they mean well, they frequently say things which are kind of stupid. Beck is, at least, funny when he's doing it. I like to listen to Levin because his words always seem to be very well considered. He is acerbic but somehow it works.

Anyway...Beck is frequently saying that he is coming out with some blockbuster thingy which is going to finally bring down the Democrats or whatever and it just never delivers. I have no patience for BS like that.
In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
This is the 2nd time in as many days I've seen an accusation or insinuation that there is a story about to bust open that will demonstrate that John Roberts was coerced into his vote for ObamaCare.

The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.

No, not about Roberts.

This:

"Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.

The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.

Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.

The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.

UPDATE: House Speaker John Boehner said** Thursday he doesn’t “intend” to push an immigration bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”"

** ...snort
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.

The first was a(nother) clip of Glenn Beck saying that in the next 48 hours something will emerge that could take down the Democrats, the Republicans, the courts, and government infrastructure. A commenter suggested that Beck was alluding to Roberts vote for ObamaCare.

Which is one of the reasons I don't make it a point to tune in to Beck every day (I will almost always tune in Limbaugh, for example). Beck is on my "listen if I have nothing better to do" list because of his penchant for hyperbole. Hannity is on the same list for different reasons. But they both come down to credibility. If Beck and Hannity were dependably credible as spokesmen for conservatives I would listen everyday. The problem is that, while I believe they mean well, they frequently say things which are kind of stupid. Beck is, at least, funny when he's doing it. I like to listen to Levin because his words always seem to be very well considered. He is acerbic but somehow it works.

Anyway...Beck is frequently saying that he is coming out with some blockbuster thingy which is going to finally bring down the Democrats or whatever and it just never delivers. I have no patience for BS like that.

Ditto.  If he wouldn't oversell what is often a nothing-burger, he'd have more credibility.

On the other hand, as to Levin, he's promised to put something out (in August, I think) on which he's been working; a strategy for fighting "them".
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
I think somebody got to Roberts on the DumbassCare vote, not sure the adoption thing rises to that level, but something really fishy surrounded that flip a year ago.

As for fighting...yeah, whatever...if people in office cannot man-up against this POSOTUS and his dozens of high crimes...well, strategy shmrategy!   ::)
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
As for the purported "risk" to the 70 Republicans who are planning to challenge leadership, what risk? They're already being denied committee assignments by the Weeping Carrot.

Boehner is as much a problem as any of the Democrats.  When the 113th Congress voted to keep him as Speaker, oh, why even go into it...
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
As for the purported "risk" to the 70 Republicans who are planning to challenge leadership, what risk? They're already being denied committee assignments by the Weeping Carrot.

Boehner is as much a problem as any of the Democrats.  When the 113th Congress voted to keep him as Speaker, oh, why even go into it...

Agreed. It is PAST time for Boehner to GO, he should never have been re-elected. That left us suspicious of a majority of our own party's representatives, even to the point that some would vote against them ALL. I have some small hope left, but, I admit it is less and less each day.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Gohmert was on Beck this AM and he called John Boehner "Tammy Faye Boehner".

I think I smell rebellion in the GOP.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Dan

  • A Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 873
  • Still hatin' those Libiots!
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist

charlesoakwood

  • Guest

He should have nightmares, he should walk the halls and weep, shame
them all who are participating in corrupting this great America.
I'll not ask God to have mercy on their souls.

Offline ChrstnHsbndFthr

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1003
    • Affordable Bail Bonds of NC, LLC
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.

I disagree. We do not need a THIRD party. What we need is a viable SECOND party. The GOP perhaps MAY not be it. If it is not, let it be a conservative, constitutional party, and let the middles, choose this day whom you will serve.  For me this is an easy choice. Always knowing what best serves is more difficult, but I will easily choose the constitution. We have only devolved since then.
“My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”
Phil Robertson an elder in the church of Christ

Offline trapeze

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Hippies smell bad. Go away, hippie.
On the other hand, as to Levin, he's promised to put something out (in August, I think) on which he's been working; a strategy for fighting "them".

I believe that is a reference to a new book.
In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

Offline trapeze

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Hippies smell bad. Go away, hippie.
Gohmert was on Beck this AM and he called John Boehner "Tammy Faye Boehner".

I think I smell rebellion in the GOP.

Yeah, I happened to have that on at the time he said that. If that is being tossed around that casually it's kind of a bad sign for the Speaker. It means that, at the very least, he isn't even being shown the courtesy of respect in public by some in his party. It means that he isn't feared and respect and fear should go hand in hand.
In a doomsday scenario, hippies will be among the first casualties. So not everything about doomsday will be bad.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
There needs to be a 3d party. Who cares about mealy-mouthed, nit-witted useful idiots whining about "a vote for 3d parties is a vote for democrats" bullsh*t.
R's these days remind me of someone holding our arms held while someone else keeps punching us in the face.

I disagree. We do not need a THIRD party. What we need is a viable SECOND party. The GOP perhaps MAY not be it. If it is not, let it be a conservative, constitutional party, and let the middles, choose this day whom you will serve.  For me this is an easy choice. Always knowing what best serves is more difficult, but I will easily choose the constitution. We have only devolved since then.

The more parties the better IMO. With two parties all you have to do is be slightly less treasonous than the other party. It is always a choice between two evils, because being slighlty less evil is all you have to be in order to be viable. The more factions, the more change that nothing will get done, and quite frankly, the govt doing nothing is often the best option.




charlesoakwood

  • Guest

[blockquote]
"The more parties the better IMO. With two parties all you have to do is be slightly less treasonous than the other party. It is always a choice between two evils, because being slighlty less evil is all you have to be in order to be viable. The more factions, the more change that nothing will get done, and quite frankly, the govt doing nothing is often the best option."[/blockquote]  

Hear, hear.  We've tried working with the Republicans to the limit.  What about that freak Rubio?
How much Tea Party money and effort go to him? And the rest of them.  I'm there.

 F R A C T U R E   _T H E  _P A R T Y

Actually, let's have alternative democrats, libertarians, republicans.  
Let's fracture all the parties!!!!