Friday, January 18, 2019

Trump Cancels Pelosi's Scheme

White House - If Taheb's Rocket Attack Gone As Planned
[Independent Sentinel]

News Media hasn't given much coverage to the Georgia man, Hasher Jallal Taheb, who planned to assault the White House, and kill the POTUS.

Conveniently, Pelosi decided to skip the State of the Union event by creating a CODEL [Congressional Delegation] this week to visit Brussels, Cairo, and Afghanistan; that would have given her, and leading Democrats an alibi - had Trump been killed, enabling Nancy to ascend to the Oval Office once Pence had been removed -- a separate scheme we'll discuss later.

Trump allowed Nancy's CODEL to board the USAF bus, but then advised that, given the government shut-down, he could not allow Nancy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such a trip at Taxpayers expense, but suggested she and her Congressional colleagues remain in Washington to negotiate a budget settlement.

Lots of scheming going on here.


Courier Flight -- for Congressional Vacations
A CODEL has traditionally been a family vacation trip for Congresspersons and their families to visit pleasure spots around the world, like Cairo and Brussels. The massively expensive flights are aboard US Air Force passenger planes, officially designated "Courier Flights" which have passenger accommodations equivalent, or superior to commercial airline First Class accommodations, complete with US Military personnel serving as flight attendants.

Those become bureaucratic and security nightmares for the US Embassy in each country as the Embassy staffs are then tasked to take the CODEL members on shopping trips and sightseeing tours. CODEL members are each issued a bag of local currency for spending money.

Endless Briefings

Essentially, the visit shuts down all operations of the Embassy planning for the visit, hosting the visit, and then writing reports on the visit for both the State Department as well as responding to demands by Members and Senators, plus shipping all the CODEL purchaseS back to the US on USAF planes to avoid US customs.

But then we have Afghanistan, the final destination of the CODEL, which would affect both the Embassy as well as the Military personnel stationed there -- who are attempting to draw down their force.

Green Zone Expands Exponentially
Still Vulnerable
The CODEL has to be hosted, requiring tons of preparation, both administrative and security by both the Embassy and the Military. While this mass of US politicians and their families prance around the Kabul Green Zone with a huge escort of US and Afghan troops, other security has to be ramped up to its highest level since the visitors would be a prime target.

Resources devoted to this security would be ground based troops, air surveillance, constant AC-130 monitoring, NSA monitoring, Army Security Agency monitoring, heightened Military Police monitoring, and a host of other asset employment.

Notably, the Taliban detonated a bomb in the Green Zone in May, 2017, killing hundreds, and destroying the German Embassy.

A CODEL consisting of a herd of self-important US politicians would offer a high visibility target, the destruction of which would provide the Taliban an extraordinary propaganda prize. 

Notably, Pelosi and Schumer condemned Trump for publicizing the CODEL's destinations, particularly Afghanistan, claiming such publicity endangered them.

That would presume that local news organizations in Europe and the Middle East would not have already been alerted to the visit by their own diplomatic corps and politicians who would be making highly visible preparations for such a visit to toady up to US legislators for financial hand-outs.

Anyone who has been assigned to a Military base targeted by a CODEL can verify the insane levels of preparations required for such a visit, which would entail disclosure to Afghan counter-parts and contractors, many of whom are covert operatives of the Taliban.

As a final note, rumor has it that all the conversations of the CODEL entrapped on the USAF bus were recorded as it left the Capitol, and then, following the release of Trump's letter to Pelosi, the bus circled the Capitol repeatedly before releasing the passengers from the bus.

Armored Train Minimized Potential Damage
Some of those recorded conversations revealed the expectation that Trump would be killed during their absence, bringing back memories of the derailing of the Train taking Republican politicians and their families to a conference near Richmond.

The train was derailed by a dump truck which ran head-on into the train, driven by a local fellow who had "mental problems".

Damage to the train was minimized by the fact that the train was armored, which kept the entire trains from derailing and rolling downhill; it reduced injuries and prevented the probability of many deaths. Some folks believe the Democrats and Deep State engineered that train wreck in the hopes of wiping out the Republican leadership -- but, that has yet to be resolved.

The President has skilled advisors thoroughly familiar with coup plotting; an excellent chess player, he's well ahead of the Democrat and RINO schemers who wish to topple him as they destroy the US.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Trump Pulls Troops Out of Syria and Afghanistan

Mattis, a superb combat warrior, disagrees with a  superb strategist
They're both right! 

We may take a bit of flack from pseudo-hawks and NeoCons, but we support Trump's decision 100%.

Old Military and Intelligence guys have wondered at the rationale of keeping our troops in the Middle East.
Saddam is dead,
Osama bin Laden is still dead.

We have no stake in the Middle East other than to assist governments to stabilize, which does not include the massive presence of Central Command Forces. Nor does it require keeping massive US Military forces in Europe under the European Command -- a relic of the Cold War. Let the Europeans fund and populate NATO; we're tired of taking their lip and funding their exquisite tastes.

As necessary, we have the capability of transporting a fully equipped combat division, with combat support aircraft from the US to a crisis site within hours via our Transportation Command's  C-5 and
C-17 cargo planes.  We can deploy supersonic bombers and fighters from the US to arrive over the Middle East with minimal flight time with maximized combat effectiveness.

We should learn from history [an odd idea, now, isn't it?]

We've been involved in these faux wars for decades, the purpose of which always remains vague - other than to support the Military-Industrial Complex -- as detailed by General/POTUS Eisenhower.

As the Soviet Empire was crumbling, we sat with Bill Clark, then the Assistant Secretary of the Army [General Mark Clark's son] as he bemoaned the future/demise of the Military without a defined enemy.

Specifically, without a definable enemy, we would have no reason to maintain a large, standing Military; and if a new global crisis arose, how could we mobilize in time to meet that crisis?

We've spent a few years in combat in a variety of countries, supposedly to "defend our country", only to learn the enemies we fought were once our friends, and our current friends were once our enemies.

Worse, we learned our "leaders" [e.g., Kissinger, Bush-1, W, Robert Gates, Obama, Billary] were the actual enemy we've come to know as the Deep State, all leading us into senseless wars.

After we [personally] were able to defeat the insurgency in Northeast Thailand, we gloated until we learned the insurgency had been sponsored by the Chinese who coopted the anti-government movement protesting the government's confiscation of farmlands in order to build a hydro-electric dam, funded by our very own Agency for International Development [USAID].  The dam construction devastated famers by claiming their fertile land and relegating this once prosperous group to generations of poverty and government subsidies.

But, the "greater good" prevailed as the region received electricity -- although few could use it.

That revelation in 1974, got us to thinking about our major Military commitments.

China and Vietnam [Ho Chi Minh] were some of our greatest supporters in WW2, establishing OSS spy networks (which we inherited during the Vietnam War) and recovering our downed pilots; but now, that enemy, Japan - the invading force, is our close ally in the Pacific, and China is now our enemy.

Ho Chi Minh worked in England and in France, and on the docks in Baltimore, so he was fluent in English as well as the US culture.

He led the movement for independence from France and formed the Indochinese Communist Party, and following WW2, sought Eisenhower's support for Vietnam's independence - which Ike declined.

LBJ initiated the war with North Vietnam by sending our warships into their territorial waters, drawing fire, thus convincing Congressional hawks to declare war.

As it turns out, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was drafted a full six months before the attacks on US vessels occurred.

While we valiantly fought that war until 1975, Henry Kissinger, without the knowledge of Nixon, was selling us out to the Chinese in 1972, in exchange for a trade agreement.

But, throughout that war, we were often reminded of the heroin trade, via the Golden Triangle, through US Military transport, to the US.  Some folks are convinced that trade was sponsored or conducted by the CIA.

Iraq, for decades before we invaded to depose Saddam, was our closest Middle East Arab Ally [see our colleague, #Rick Francona's book "Ally to Adversary"], as well as our principal oil supplier.

Dick Cheney's Defense Contractors made a fortune exploiting the war -- and our soldiers, and we then had a generation of soldiers succumb to the Gulf War Syndrome [attributed to the oil vapor from burning wells, or, depleted uranium munitions, but in fact, derived from the Anthrax vaccine immunizations in 1990 by order of the Department of Defense on all Army troops who "might" be deployed to Iraq -- Bush's friends in the Pharmaceutical Industry profited mightily from that requirement -- even though it had not been through more than one (incomplete) trial.

Theoretically, the US would use oil sales from Iraq to pay for that war, but, in the end, the oil fields went under the control of other countries, and the US got not a cent!  On the other hand, US Defense contractors made fortunes.

Estimates by Reuters put the estimated total cost of the Iraq War at more than $5.6 Trillion.  
The war killed an estimated 150,000 Iraqi civilians, with unconfirmed estimates ranging up to 600,000, including security forces, insurgents, journalists, and humanitarian workers!  Bush demonstrated US power by publicly executing Saddam by hanging him, by the neck, until dead.
[Rumor has it that W faced that same sentence in Gitmo in December, 2018]

The social impact in Iraq included the reinvigoration of Islamic militants, reversal of women's rights, and a weakened an already precarious healthcare system.  The multi-billion reconstruction effort was regarded a failure as most of the monies spent on security was lost to waste or fraud.

Keep in mind that the basis of George W Bush's invasion of Iraq was based on his announcement that Saddam Hussein held "Weapons of Mass Destruction" [WMD] a claim discounted by Rick Francona who was/is an expert on the region and acted as General Schwartzkopf's personal Arabic interpreter and Intelligence Advisor.

Schwartzkopf, opposed by Dick Cheney later became critical of the rationale behind the war once he learned the "WMD" claim was fraudulent and handed in his retirement papers rather than remain on Active Duty.  No evidence was ever substantiated of WMDs in Iraq.

Our legacy in Iraq was, perhaps, to create the subsequent regional terrorist factions which represent our current global threat.

The Afghans were our closest allies in their battles against the Soviets, as we helped create and aided the Mujahiden; but, there were even allegations that the CIA created Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, via Operation Cyclone, -- and then, once the Soviets were defeated, we abandoned our Afghan colleagues, allowing religious zealots to control the Taliban who were then dubbed terrorists; they're now our enemy because bin Laden was reportedly hiding out in Afghanistan.

In spite of the Special Operations assault on bin Laden's Pakistan hideout and his assassination, he has been repeatedly reported in sightings vacationing in the Caribbean with his family.

The faux assassination of bin Laden was conducted by Admiral McRaven's Special Operations units under the guise of Operation Neptune Spear as a public relations event for then-POTUS Obama.  McRaven reportedly was one of the flag rank officers who signed on to Obama's requirement that they agreed to fire on US Civilians if so ordered.

Contrary to all Intelligence protocols, bin Laden was killed and his [supposedly his] mutilated body was dumped in the ocean, sparking Muslim outrage throughout the world, and leaving professional Intelligence officers bewildered that he was not taken captive [he was unarmed] and interrogated to obtain his knowledge of regional and global terrorist groups.

Notably, SEAL Team Six, the lead on the bin Laden assault, later suffered 38 casualties, to include 15 participants of the bin Laden raid when their Chinook helicopter was shot down on August 6, 2011IN [Extortion 17] -- not long after members of the Team lampooned Obama as in Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair soliloquy.

Loading 38 SEALs aboard a chopper in a combat zone strains credulity, but, apparently, the orders came down from McRaven -- an officer we all respected until too many of these incidents surfaced, and he has recently become a highly vocal critic of President Trump.

The chopper was allegedly shot down by a Surface to Air [SAM/MANPAD]

But, why are we in Afghanistan now?

Most experts remain bewildered, other than the US now tacitly protects the poppy/heroin trade.

And, we learned that ISIS, our Enemy-du-Jour, has been led and funded by senior officers of our closest Mid-East Allies, apparently so we would have an officially recognized enemy.

Later, we learned that Benghazi was all about covering up Hillary's arms deals with ISIS and al Qaeda by overthrowing Qadafi and transferring the contents of Libyan armories to al Qaeda -- who just might be tempted use those weapons against US forces.

Of late, we received from an anonymous donor, the complete [unclassified] war-plan designed by [former General] Wesley Clark [Clinton's protege and commander of the Military raid on Waco] in which Clark planned a war between Ukraine and Russia, into which US forces would be inserted and engaged.
[It was difficult to determine who would have been the enemy in that war, but US engagement would guarantee profits for our Defense Contractors.]

In Central America, a grouping of 'banana republics" and a hotbed of corruption, the US built up the Southern Command [SouthCom] headquarters from a Military retirement vacationland to a highly energized and blossoming combat command, focused on defeating the communist threat to Nicaragua, which Jimmy Carter had turned over to the Sandinistas by pulling support from the "evil despot", Somoza - [a West Point graduate] and allowing communist Daniel Ortega to come to power and who then ushered in the Cubans and Soviets -- who presented The Threat.

We were assigned as the Special Intelligence Advisor to SouthCom, a thinly staffed regional headquarters which could respond to any regional crisis, and watched it mushroom into a bloated, top heavy bureaucracy which justified its existence by toppling our host and ally, Noriega with a massive invasion, built a huge Military force in Honduras and El Salvador, created a war zone in El Salvador, and essentially destabilized an entire sub-continent by becoming the common enemy of all, and a seeming ally of the Drug Cartels, thanks to Bush-1, Clinton, Bush-2, and Obama.

The US militarized El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, and headquartered Army and Air Force bases in each country, and supported Panama's Noriega as a "benevolent despot", who profited by accepting payments from the KGB, the CIA, Army Intelligence, -- and the Chinese.

[We managed HUMINT programs in CentAm following a by-name request by the CIA DDO-LA [D Clarridge] and the former DCI [V Walters] to restructure both the CIA and the Military Intelligence HUMINT operations in Latin America]

Noriega was also a drug runner and arms dealer; but, then we created an intelligence program that revealed that Noriega was not just a tin-horn dictator, but masterminded a global network of hundreds of front companies through which he moved drugs, arms, and laundered money -- a sophisticated network CIA/Deep State coveted, so Noriega was declared evil, and the US invaded Panama, and the CIA took control of all the Noriega Front Companies to carry on their global, Black enterprises.

But, all that is hidden in the background, and Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria are sort of enemy strongholds, but, we're not sure who are the good guys, or the bad guys.

So, now, who will the US have to identify and combat "The "Threat"?
Afghanistan for another 10 or 15 years? or Syria, for another 10 years!

We have the highly skilled and specialized Special Forces [the Special Operations Commmand (SOCOM) designed for insertion into hostile zones to address "Terrorists".

We have a Cyber Command which theoretically can combat hacking by all our Cyber enemies, and even the Russians, if we can admit that the US targets the successor to the USSR
[the Cyber Command apparently includes Spookdblog as an enemy since they have bombarded our residences with impulse waves, hacked our cell-phones and texted Clapper's threats to us, along with excerpts of our highly classified Officer Evaluation Reports (OER)-- just to let us know they could do it.]

Notably, there are several other Unified Commands [AfriCom, SouthCom, Strategic Command, etc.,] which serve no purpose other than to create command slots for unnecessary generals and bureaucrats, and to fund NATO.

But, let's not forget the Defense contractors who provide that expensive support for our Military forces deployed in those regions. The massive expansion of our Military and Intelligence organizations under Bush and Obama have created a huge financial burden, and a bloated Military hierarchy unseen in the history of the US -- even at the peak of World War 2.

These Commands waste manpower and equipment, and create the scenarios for regional wars - usually backing the wrong elements; they augment their forces by deploying National Guard units from the US at great expense. It's time to rethink our Military from top to bottom.

Do we need to remain in Afghanistan or Syria?

Lots of senior Military officers will state adamantly that the US must live up to its commitments in both areas of operation [AO].  But, precisely what commitment is there?

1) Afghanistan: 
After 17 years, our accomplishments consist of:
   a) Trillions of dollars spent,
   b) Deployment of countless National Guard units in six month deployments barely long enough
        to familiarize them with the environment before coming under attack,
    c) Countless suicides during, and after deployments, abominable leadership, massive
        post-deployment illnesses,
    d) Assassination of US personnel by Afghan allies, and
    e) Absolutely no positive results other than protecting Poppy fields for local drug lords,
    f) Bad guys control most of the country and the Afghan Government [our Ally] controls
        a few acres
    g) Most Afghans regard us as their enemy

2) Syria:
We've only been engaged in Syria for seven years, since 2011, and here's a list of accomplishments:
   a) Roughly 500,00 people are dead
   b) Dozens of countries are involved
   c)  Many [exact number unknown] terrorist groups are involved -- on both sides
   d)  Syrian President Assad is backed by Iran and Russia [our current "enemies"] and Pakistan
   c)  Opposition to Assad includes
        (1) hundreds of "militias" from an estimated 85 countries,
        (2) Syrian Democratic Forces [Kurdish-led coalition of Arab and Kurdish Militias],
              (a) led by the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK)
              (b) regarded by the US and the UK as a Terrorist group although the US provides
                   them air support against ISIS]
              (c) BUT, Turkey fights the Kurds fearing they will use a victory to declare an independent
                    state along the border
        (3) Miscellaneous Arabs, Sunnis, Christians, Druze, and Kurds],
        (4) Islamic extremists -- some of which have been declared terrorists,
              including the Syrian version of al Qaeda [armed by Hillary from Libyan
              military warehouses]
        (5) ISIS- supposedly local Islamic extremists, although manpower derives from a variety
              of countries including Canada, the US, Australia, Israel, the UK, Iraq, etc.
        (6) Official backing by outside nations includes the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey

Mr Trump has stated he will pull out of Syria, but, given the complexities listed above, he faces a great deal of opposition from Allies, the Democrats, the Pentagon, the GOP, and all those who anticipate profiting from the continuation of this conflict.

Essentially, Trump is removing his "Boots-On-The-Ground" units and still maintaining a protective shield by creating a "No-Fly-Zone" in the Northeast of Syria which is rich in Agriculture, Water, and Energy resources - the target of all the Bad Guys.

The US can remove its primary units deployed by Obama, but tactically, can still respond, as needed from other Middle East areas, or,  from the US with Special Operations units and A-10 Warthogs, the close-air support aircraft Obama was intent on eliminating.

Assuming the reports of satellite enabled weaponry [Star Wars], bad guys [if accurately identified] could be targeted and blasted into oblivion in seconds using the Directed Energy Weapons developed back in the 1970s, or lasers developed during the 1960s, now significantly enhanced, with targeting via sophisticated technology developed since then.

In the ancient words of Walt Kelly's POGO,
"We have met the enemy, and he is US!"
Trump has an uphill battle to fix this.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed?

Roberts Questions Trump's Immigration Barriers

This is another Guest Post which provides some background
on the motivations of Chief Justice Roberts who has now become
 a political voice opposing President Trump' immigration barriers to 
Illegals and the Court "...legislating from the Bench."  

He was appointed on his Conservative values
but took an abrupt turn to the Left supporting, 
at the last minute, ObamaCare 
-- to the astonishment of the Conservative community.  

This OpEd, by T.J. McCann, may shed light on 
Justice Roberts' apparent conversion to the Left.
[Note: References to News Media, e.g., NYT, were from years prior to 
the Leftist politicization of those publications -- back when they were staffed 
by professional, investigative journalists, so we endorse them at that time in history]

Click here for original article

"How Roberts Was Blackmailed To Support ObamaCare"
March 2, 2015
By-Line T.J. McCann

T.J. McCann originally wrote this article and presented the research on 29 January 2013, 
on the now defunct forum, posted under nickname “Trip”. 
The story got serious traction across the blogosphere, and was picked up at such
 sites as “WhatReallyHappened” and “BeforeItsNews(Archived).

Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute,, and did this so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. According to some sources, Roberts wrote both the majority and a large portion of minority dissenting opinions.

The liberal news outlet has a story on July 3, 2012,
Roberts Wrote Both ObamaCare Opinions”, written by law professor Paul Campos, citing “a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process.

In this Salon article, Campos rejects the claim that the Conservative minority wrote the dissenting opinion in response to Roberts’ majority opinion. Instead Campos’ source indicates that Roberts authored as much as the “first 46 pages” of the dissent, a full 70%, originally intended to be the majority opinion entirely rejecting ObamaCare.

Only after Roberts switched his vote at the last minute did the remaining four Justices author the final 19 pages of that dissenting opinion. In support of this, Campos points out that it is extraordinary “in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting”, and yet there are repeated references to dissent from the majority opinion in those last 19 pages.

These facts may answer that question. 

Roberts Adoptions: In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children.
Initially it was believed that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it became 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 noting that 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?
At the time, the adoption terms of the children was uncertain.

The Associated Press reported that they were “adopted from Latin America.”

This indication should have been noteworthy, particularly given the Time magazine report indicating that the children were born in Ireland. Also, their blond hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American.

1) TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts’ (7/24/05) and therein 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’ 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
       a) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 
       b) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has 
            all adoptions go through a public agency. 

Roberts' Latin American Children
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 contacted Irish women, arranged for them to be transported out of Ireland and into compliant Latin American countries, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers, two in this case, 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. As of 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts’ for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as “infants”.

Some might feel an impulse to dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home. This would be a narrow perspective on what occurred. 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.

Irish Mother & Baby Homes
These actions are promoting 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 a 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 US 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 records in order to win election. 

Irish Adoption Scandal
Irish Adoption Law 
The weak point in this theory, beyond actual proof of blackmail, consists of the actual terms of Irish Adoption LawHowever an overview of the widespread Irish Adoption laws does bear out the assertions.

As a result of Irish adoption law being the accumulation of laws over the years, this following synopsis is an accurate [as of 2013] representation of that law given no singular code can be directly referenced. 

Reference: Overview of Ireland Adoption Law
The above document makes the following statements: 
 “The responsibility for making adoption orders is vested in the Irish Adoption Board [An Bord Uchtala]. Before a final adoption order is made, the child usually is placed with the future adopter(s) by one of Ireland’s Registered Adoption Societies.”  

    a)  Who may adopt?
        “While the Irish acts do not require the applicants have Irish nationality or an Irish domicile, the applicants must be ordinarily resident in Ireland or have resident there during the year ending on the date of the order.

     b)  Adoption Authorities: 
        “The adoption process in Ireland is regulated by the Adoption Board — the An Bord Uchtala — which consists of a Chairman and eight members. The Adoption Board is an independent, quasi-judicial statutory body appointed by the Irish Government. It has the sole right to grant or refuse to grant adoption orders. The Board is also responsible for granting the declarations of eligibility and suitability to prospective adopters in advance of their adopting abroad and for maintaining the Register of Foreign Adoptions in which the details of intercountry adoptions are entered.” 

     c)  Process:
          (1) “Before an adoption agency can accept a child for adoption, the person proposing to give the child up must be furnished with a statement explaining the effect of adoption order upon his or her rights and the provisions of the adoption acts relating to consents. 
          (2) An agreement to place the child with prospective adopters must be signed prior to the signing of consent
         (3) The agreement to place must have been made freely, with full knowledge of the consequences, and under circumstances where neither the advice of persons engaged in the transaction nor the surrounding circumstances deprive the mother of the capacity to make a fully informed free decision. 
         (4) In particular an agreement to place is “not valid if motivated by fear, stress or anxiety or dictated by parents or deprivations.“

    d) There are no private adoptions. 
         (1) There are no overseas adoptions. 
         (2) All adoptions go through the government board, An Bord Uchtala.

John Roberts was not ordinarily resident in Ireland, and was not resident there for the year ending on the date of an order that never passed through the Uchtala Board! Furthermore, it is doubtful that 
Robert’s adoption afforded the [two] adopting mothers an environment that fully informed each of them of their rights, and was free of stress, anxiety, coercion and “deprivations”.

In fact it is virtually certain that the process involved removing two children and their respective mothers from Ireland, and any support structure they might have had there, not to mention removing them from the purview of Irish law!

This whole exercise was both illegal and unethical.
Even if John Roberts were not blackmailed, these conditions would undeniably provide leverage for extortion to use against a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court [and they likely were!].


Editorial Note:
There is no question that Chief Justice Roberts loves his adopted children and has given them a superb home environment; and, under normal circumstances, we would not condemn him for his actions.

The sad fact, however, is that Roberts blatantly broke Irish Law in the adoption of his two children, leaving himself open to blackmail by his opponents [e.g., the Obama Administration].  Thus, ObamaCare, which violated countless Constitutional issues Roberts dismissed the legal challenges presented and endorsed ObamaCare in a convoluted decision -- which decriminalized ObamaCare and essentially destroyed the existing US healthcare system.

Obama Used NSA "dirt" on Boehner to pass Spending Bill
The Obama Administration was notorious for threatening its opponents and enemies with measures ranging from blackmail to physical threats on individuals and families.  

This process began in Chicago during Obama's campaign for the Illinois State Legislature when his opponents all dropped out, and later, in his run for the US Senate when his opponent mysteriously withdrew, replaced at last minute by a token GOP opponent whom he easily defeated.

Scalia couldn't be blackmailed
So he was murdered

Since Chief Justice Roberts' ObamaCare decision reversal, he has been merely a token Conservative, and has recently become, against ALL tradition and logic, a Leftist Activist openly opposing President Trump's Executive Orders and Tweets

Of recent note, we've been consumed by reports of Human Trafficking by Illegals from Central America marching towards our southern borders; inevitably, arrests will be made and escalate to the US Supreme Court, where defense lawyers, aware now of Roberts' history as himself a Human Trafficker  will demand he recuse himself from such legal reviews - likely derailing Trump's policies once again.

It's likely that Chief Justice Roberts is now being blackmailed, and perhaps his family is being threatened; we suggest he vacate his Supreme Court seat to maintain his dignity.

It is also time for the Department of Justice to indict Mr Obama on a variety of criminal charges, to include Blackmail, and perhaps more serious charges!