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 LibertyCaucus.com, posted under nickname “Trip”. 
The story got serious traction across the blogosphere, and was picked up at such
 sites as “WhatReallyHappened” and “BeforeItsNews(Archived).

INTRO:
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 Salon.com 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!

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Comrade de Blasio - Staging the Deep State's USSA

Comrade de Blasio
Staging the Deep State's USSA



As we do periodically, we publish a post from another author 
when it conveys a message better than we could.  

In this case, Michael Goodwin of the New York Post wrote an Opinion Piece 
in September 2017 which warned of the dangers of reelecting Mayor de Blasio, 
who declared his intention to transition New York City into a Communist state.  
Goodwin's argument went for naught as New Yorkers, embracing de Blasio's 
communist rhetoric, reelected him with a landslide victory - likely 
anticipating that they could seize private property.  We'll see.

If you'd like to refresh your memory on how a transition to Communism 
works, and to educate friends and family, we recommend the 1965 movie
Dr Zhivago which can stand as a documentary.

-----

Click here for original article:
Michael Goodwin, NY Post 05SEP17


Dear fellow Democrats:

To judge from the polls and personal experience, many of you are somewhere between lukewarm and ice cold toward Mayor Bill de Blasio. You love that crime keeps falling and that murders are headed for a record low, but worry that the growing disorder on the streets smells like trouble is coming.

You have never seen so many vagrants, and so many of them looking deranged and dangerous. Why didn’t he tackle the problem in the beginning, instead of denying the obvious — that the numbers were exploding?

You also don’t like it that the subways are a mess, traffic is pretty much congested everywhere all the time and bicycle riders are treated as privileged characters even as they routinely flaunt safety laws.

You pay the nation’s highest taxes, but it’s never enough.
The cost of living here is out of control, despite what looks and feels like diminished public services.

Columbus Statue
Streets are filthy, roads are rutted, yet every time you turn around, City Hall is focused on race, gender and identity politics, as if that’s what working people care about most. 

Is the mayor really going to take down the Christopher Columbus statue in — of all places — Columbus Circle? What would they call it — de Blasio Circle? Al Sharpton Circle? Columbus statue may get an 'explanation' plaque! 

ED NOTE:


Lopez Rivera [Puerto Rican Terrorist]


Police are getting assassinated, jihadists threaten to destroy America — and City Hall honors a Puerto Rican terrorist.

[It’s repulsive, I’m sick to my stomach,” said retired NYPD Detective Tony Senft, 70, who lost an eye while diffusing one of Rivera's bombs at a Manhattan courthouse in 1982."]




You care about public schools, but the mayor’s claim of great progress sounds fishy. 
de Blasio's Socialist School System

If graduation rates and test scores were so easy to fix, why didn’t it happen before? Are the numbers real, or are they faked to make the mayor look good?

And why did he relax discipline standards, when every parent knows that one troublemaker can ruin a class for 30 kids?

Then there’s the mayor’s relentless war against charter schools, especially those that have a proven record of success. It feels immoral to sacrifice the future of at-risk children for the benefit of a union that is bloated with donations and political connections, yet de Blasio never misses an opportunity to create frictions instead of solutions.

His reflexive dishonesty is a big, big problem.
The “city for sale” allegations ring true, and it’s not satisfying that just because the mayor skipped an indictment, he deserves a second term. So as election season approaches, starting with next week’s primary, you’re not sure what to do.

Then you read about de Blasio’s interview with New York magazine.
Your first thought is, it’s a miracle he didn’t break both arms patting himself on the back.

Anyone reading his comments without living here would conclude that the Great Helmsman has single-handedly turned Gotham into the Garden of Eden. Look at my record, he insisted, saying it deserved “parades out in the streets.” He boasted of “my policies and my leadership” and declared himself a great manager. Me, me, me, my, my, my. It was tacky — and not at all reflective of the New York you live in. Naturally, for anything wrong, it was “Don’t blame me.”

de Blasio's Communist Linkage 
He complained that a “tabloid culture” — The New York Post in particular — causes the “hateful, negative, divisive” public tone of politics, just before he denounced the rich, criticized Governor Andrew Cuomo and tore into President Trump as “profoundly racist.”

It got worse from there.
In comments to interviewer Chris Smith, the mayor dropped his re-election smiley face to reveal his inner dictator, one who would banish individual rights and constitutional safeguards — all in the name of fairness, as he defines it.
Our legal system is structured to favor private property,” he said, insisting that “people would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.



For good measure, he added:
If I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see.

You certainly wish government could move faster and get things done with common sense, but the idea that Bill de Blasio and his corrupt crew would have the power to determine how every slice of land is used is unAmerican.

Your house is no longer yours, it will belong to "the people"
You have a house — suppose he wants to demolish it.
Do you want him to have that power?
Then you realize, this is the progressive vision of government he’s always talking about, the idea that a select few should decide what is good for the rest of us and have the power to implement it.



["All are equal, but some are more equal than others" 
-- as George Orwell noted in Animal Farm]

It is profoundly anti-democratic, yet that’s the world he wants to see.
Is that what a second term holds?
Is he going to spring ideas like that after the election?
Beyond the arrogance, the mayor’s ignorance about American history and the Founders’ intent, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence’s guarantee of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is appalling.

Your children know better! So what to do?
Here, my fellow Democrats, is a modest proposal.
Send him a message.
Vote “NO” in the primary by voting for someone else. Anyone else!.

Whatever you do, just make it clear to de Blasio that you don’t approve of his message.
He’ll probably win anyway, but, hopefully, by a narrow margin.

That would get his attention — and remind him of who’s the boss.
That alone would be a true public service for all New Yorkers.
----
ED Note:
[Mayor de Blasio was reelected to a second term with 66% of the votes on 6NOV2018.  
The "have-nots" presume they will be able to live in the homes of the evicted homeowners in NYC.  
Welcome to Communism, folks]

de Blasio's announcements:
"You saw some important changes in the last four years. But you ain't seen nothing yet!"

1) Prosecutors closed an investigation into his fund-raising practices, but filed no charges, while criticizing his ignoring election laws and the courtroom testimony of "pay-to-play" crook Jona Rechnitz, who claimed his 6-figure campaign donations gave him direct access to the Mayor.

2)  In November, 2018, de Blasio fired NYPD Deputy Police Chief Michael Osgood, and then fired Investigation Commissioner Mark Peters, both managing investigation of Sex Crimes and the Special Victims Division; Peters had issued a scathing report on administrative issues in the Administration for Children's Services.  [Could de Blasio be shutting down NYPD's investigations into Human Trafficking, tied to the Deep State?]

3) In 2016, there were five major investigations being conducted on de Blasio by 
Federal, State, and City entities.

More scandals to come?
Will New Yorkers ignore this march to Communism, turning the Big Apple into the Big Toilet?

For those of you who remember history, and Mayor Dinkins' near success in destroying New York City, keep in mind that his protege' was none other than Mr de Blasio.  

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"