Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2020

VOTE: The Scariest Word

We've been on Sabbatical for an extended period 
and have been unable to publish in our normal manner.  
So, we continue to review relevant, published articles 
which mirror our thoughts.  This is another in this genre.

It's gratifying to see that one of our younger generation 
understands the threat of Socialism and Communism and 
is familiar with relevant history.

When you read through this article, 
you might recognize several players 
in the current political arena who 
promote the concept of the 
Democratic Majority Rule concept.  
Keep in mind the US was not formed 
as a Democracy [aka: communism] 
but rather, as a REPUBLIC!

 Image by: Joanbanjo 
Vote: The Scariest Word in Orwell’s 'Animal Farm' 

By: Grayson Quay IntellectualTackout.org
Published in:  [https://stupidfrogs.org/articles/vote_the_scariest_word_in_orwells_animal_farm.html]
[Quay is a freelance writer. 
His work has been published in The Washington Times, The National Interest, Rare, and Townhall. He is a graduate of Grove City College, a former high school teacher, and a current M.A. student at Georgetown University.]

---------

To the first-time reader, George Orwell’s 1945 fable Animal Farm might appear to be the story of a grand experiment that began as a veritable utopia before its betrayal by an authoritarian hijacker.

That’s certainly how many leftists, including one of my former professors, view the Russian Revolution on which Orwell’s animal revolution is based. It’s probable that even Orwell himself saw the Soviet Union in this way. In his memoir Homage to Catalonia, Orwell describes a revolutionary Barcelona in which private property had been violently seized, “almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt,” priests and business owners had been slaughtered, and “every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle.”

Orwell calls this Communist nightmare “a state of affairs worth fighting for.”

For Orwell, the Spanish Left transformed Barcelona into a noble “workers State” that fell from grace only when Stalin, who prioritized Russian national security over international Communist expansion, imposed his own self-serving agenda. In Animal Farm Orwell emphasizes the contrast between the days of peace and plenty the animals enjoyed under Snowball (Trotsky), and the sufferings they endured under Napoleon (Stalin).

In both Spain and Russia, it is Stalin who acts as Orwell’s villain, not Communism itself.

Yet hidden away in an early chapter of Animal Farm, before the reader has caught even a whiff of Napoleon’s totalitarian ambitions, a single word reveals the moral rot at the core of Communism. 

That word, and all the horrors it implies, slips out as Old Major (Marx/Lenin) introduces the animals to Communist ideology, and lays the foundation for the coming revolution.

That word is “vote”: ‘

Major said: 
All men are enemies. All animals are comrades,’ 
At this moment there was a tremendous uproar. 
While Major was speaking four large rats had crept out 
of their holes and were sitting on their hindquarters, 
listening to him.  The dogs had suddenly caught sight 
of them, and it was only by a swift dash for their holes 
that the rats saved their lives. 

Listen to Bernie

Major raised his trotter for silence.

‘Comrades,’ he said, ‘here is a point that must be settled. 
The wild creatures, such as rats and rabbits—are they our 
friends or our enemies? Let us put it to the vote. I propose 
this question to the meeting: Are rats comrades?’ 

 The vote was taken at once, and it was agreed by an 
overwhelming majority that rats were comrades.

Old Major begins by dividing all living beings into two categories: enemies and comrades, oppressors and oppressed, evil and good. Marxism depends on this division. Utopia, it promises, will arrive only when everyone in the “enemy” category is wiped out. Immediately, however, it becomes obvious to
Orwell’s four-footed revolutionaries that it is not self-evident who belongs in which category.

Are rats comrades to be defended, or vermin to be exterminated?
Or, in real-world terms, is the owner of a small family farm who employs a pair of field hands a proletarian ally or a bourgeois oppressor?

In his foreword to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, Jordan Peterson comments on the horrifying implications of this method of categorization: It is… necessary to pose the question:
‘Who, precisely, belonged to that hypothetical entity, “the bourgeoisie”?’

 It is not as if the boundaries of such a category are self-evident, there for the mere perceiving.

They must be drawn. But where, exactly? And, more importantly, by whom—or by what? These are life-and-death decisions, and the animals make them by simple majority vote. Enemies have no rights and can be killed without hesitation, and anyone can be arbitrarily designated an enemy at any time.

Such a system is a double-edged sword: many of the animals who voted to include the rats as comrades are later executed as enemies.

[The United States Constitution protects individual rights that no majority, 
no matter how large, can overrule.  Our elections are protected by the Electoral College, which prevents the "majority" from overruling the Minority States and rural vote.]

Under Communism individuals do not matter, the collective has unlimited power to destroy all who oppose it. The animals’ democratic system eventually gives way to Napoleon’s dictatorship, but the method of categorization is of secondary importance.

Stalin executed 50 million "Enemies of the State"
What matters is the existence of the power to designate and eliminate enemies at will, not who exercises that power. By wielding this power, Napoleon continues to rely on the ideology he inherited from Major and Snowball.

It is precisely because the animals believe in their own moral purity as the oppressed class that Napoleon is able to massacre his opponents and pacify the survivors with fear-mongering propaganda.



If the only thing standing in the way of utopia is the oppressor class, then the slaughter must continue until utopia arrives. If things aren’t perfect yet, it’s because enemies still lurk somewhere, and it becomes the responsibility of every good comrade to spy on his neighbors.

The “enemy” category can be extended as many times as is necessary.
The whole system is a dictator’s dream. Contrary to what Orwell would have liked to believe,
Stalin and Napoleon did not represent the corruption of Communist ideology, but rather its
inevitable result.

Orwell failed to see this truth because he did not understand what Solzhenitsyn learned so painfully in one of Stalin’s gulags:




If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, 
and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. 
But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. 
----



ED NOTE:
As the Democrats move toward consolidating for the November POTUS election, we can see their strategy, tactics, and end game.  
1) Promote Bernie as the radical, wild-eyed communist extremist to be eventually replaced by
2) Biden, an acceptable, doddering, befuddled "Moderate", 
3) who will promote Michelle as his VP, after which he will resign, making
4) Michelle, our first Transexual POTUS, who will reward. 
5) Crazy Lizzie Warren with the position of Secretary of State, while the only 
6) [faux] "Combat Vet, Mayor Pete, will be rewarded with the Secretary of Defense position, who will enforce Martial Law.

The End Objective will be to install a Totalitarian Government,
And behind the scenes, we'll see Soros orchestrating.  
There will still be elections, but the Electoral College will be abolished, and, as Stalin noted:
"It is enough we have elections; 
It is not who votes that counts,
It is who COUNTS the votes."

The Democrats have become the 
Communist Party of America.





------------

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Will Google Control 2020 Election?


YouTube Screenshot of Project Veritas video featuring Google's
head of Responsible Innovation at Global Affairs Jen Gennai


Here's another investigative journalism piece we find revelatory
and critical to understanding the threat posed to our National Security 
by our "enemies from within"!


Project Veritas 
Reveals Google's 'Fairness' Efforts to 
Prevent 2016 From Happening Again

By TYLER O'NEIL 
24 June 2019
[Follow Tyler O'Neil on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil] 

Jenn Gennai
On 24 Jue 2019, Project Veritas released a powerful video revealing Google's liberal "Machine Learning Fairness" program, which a Google executive, Jenn Gennai admitted defined fairness in terms any supporter of President Donald Trump would disagree with.

Jenn also suggested that Senator (D-Mass.) Elizabeth Warren's  plan to break up Google is misguided because
only Google has the power to prevent "the next Trump situation."

She also expressed a goal with Google's algorithms — to prevent 2016 from happening again.

 Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like, a small company cannot do that,"

Liz Warren
[FauxCaHauntUs]

Jen Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation at Google Global Affairs, told an undercover Project Veritas journalist in the video.

Jenn further asks
 "We're also training our algorithms if 2016 happened again, would we have, would the outcome be different?  2020, certainly on top of my old organization, Trust and Safety, top of mind, they’ve been working on it since 2016, to make sure we’re ready for 2020."





It is possible Gennai was referring to the Russian Fake News farms active during the 2016 election, a problem which Google and other Big Tech companies should combat. As for those algorithms, the Project Veritas video focused on Machine Learning Fairness, also known as ML Fairness.

Gennai admits that her definition of fairness cuts against the way Trump supporters would understand the term.

She lays out a very intersectional understanding of fairness and says in the video:
"My definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities. And that’s who I care about. Communities who are in power and have traditionally have been in power are not who I’m solving fairness for. 

Everyone is Equal!   But, Some
[
e.g., Google] Are More Equal Than Others!
"Our definition of fairness is one of those things that we thought would be like, obvious, and everybody would agree to, and it wasn’t. There was the same people who voted for the current president do not agree with our definition of fairness.

"According to intersectionality, historically marginalized communities still face inherent biases against them and therefore in order for true fairness to be achieved, this inherent imbalance must be reversed. 


This means that fairness does not involve giving a white man and a black woman a fair shake, but rather shifting the playing field so the black woman has an advantage!


 Google Exec Boasted About Helping Hillary Clinton
 by Boosting Latino Turnout in 2016

According to a Google insider  
"Fairness is a dog whistle. It does not mean what you think that it means and you have to apply Doublethink in order to understand what they’re actually saying.
"What they’re really saying about fairness is that they have to manipulate their search results so it gives them the political agenda that they want. And so they have to rebias their algorithms."

As for that "rebiasing," it also explicitly involves news, according to Project Veritas.
The video shows leaked documents calling for Google to establish "a single point of truth" for news.

At PJ Media, an admittedly unscientific study found that 96 percent of Google search results for "Trump News" came from liberal sources.

Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin & CFO Ruth Porat
Jenn Gennai admits in the video:
"We have gotten accusations on 'around fairness' is that we’re unfair to Conservatives because we’re choosing what we define as credible news sources and those sources don’t necessarily overlap with conservative sources so we’re getting accusations of fair from one side."




The Google whistleblower says
"They are not an objective source of information; they are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again."

In the video, Gennai says that
"... everyone everyone got screwed over in 2016. We all got screwed over in 2016. Again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so, we’re rapidly being, like, what happened there, and how do we prevent it from happening again?"


This is far from the first time that anti-Trump bias has been revealed at Google.

A Google executive bragged about efforts to boost Latino turnout "in key states" in 2016, expecting that voting bloc to pull for Hillary Clinton.

Employees at Google and other tech companies heavily favor Democrats in political contributions. A Google manager also blamed Trump's victory on "Fake News" and "Hate Speech."

PJ Media has reached out to Google for a response to the Project Veritas video, and will update this story with any response.

-------
Editorial Note:  
Deep State involvement?

Interestingly, the Russia, Russia, Russia anti-Trump meme was partially sponsored by the Co-Founder of Google, Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin [Серге́й Миха́йлович Брин], a Russian Jew born and bred in Soviet Union Moscow; miraculously, the family was granted official exit visas in 1977, "to leave the USSR" -- unusual since most folks were executed for trying to leave during that era. 

In fact, we, in US Military Intelligence [MI] smuggled Russian Jews out of the USSR in a covert "underground pipeline" at great risk to our existing Intelligence networks in the USSR and Europe - created over dozens of years; these  refugees, mostly with science backgrounds, were delivered to Brooklyn, NY, where they were to be debriefed by MI prior to their release to Jewish sponsors.  However, since the Jewish sponsors would immediately spirit the refugees away before the debriefings could even start, we shut the entire network down and advised the Brooklyn contingent to run their own exfil operation. 

Oddly, Brin received a graduate fellowship from the National Science Foundation, and later interned at Wolfram Research, developers of Mathematica.  Seemed money appeared from all directions to develop an embryonic start-up with Larry Page to develop a data search web crawler engine.

Once Google gained a public awareness foothold with the GoogleMail [GMail] application, things started taking off.  Then came Google Maps, which blossomed into the mysteriously dynamic and pristine - high-resolution satellite imagery "sold" to it by the Intelligence Community in 1990 under a program sponsored by then-President George HW Bush to sell Military technology to the Private Sector.  This new satellite imagery tool had been part of the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO] the very existence of which was highly classified until 2007 when we obtained permission from the NRO Director to publish its existence, location, and operational mission in the book we published: The Best of DC - Inaugural Edition [2007].  

The introduction to the public by Google came when it designated it's new product as "Keyhole" which stunned the Intelligence Community which was familiar with  the name Keyhole as half of the Talent-Keyhole designation for satellite imagery, classified well above Top Secret.  Suddenly, this Top Secret technology was part of the start up company called Google, and the product morphed into Google Earth.  Then again, the newer technology came with advanced satellites, which produced better imagery which linked to the National GeoSpatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) [formerly NGIC], the imagery products of which are particularly precise.  

[Nonetheless, Hillary's server was loaded with this TS/C material, which she "declassified" by cutting off the classification markings.  That used to be National Security violation, penalized by authorities with massive fines and very long prison terms - except Hillary has yet to be charged with any crime, so it must be ok now to release Top Secret Intelligence material.]

The cover story for this transfer of technology is that In-Q-Tel, a CIA sponsored private equity firm sponsored Google and Google Earth's development in 1999. Then again, In-Q-Tel must have also invested in a Time Machine to to back to 1990 to invest in developing the technology which Bush sold.  

Which leads us to the question of how deeply are the CIA and the Deep State intertwined?






Monday, June 24, 2019

Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Destroyed

Hope Hicks testified, in full, before the House Committee,
answering all questions regarding Trump's contact with Russia.
The Democrats now focus solely on questions she declined
which addressed other White House issues.



Since the News Media buried this report, 
hoping the voting public would not notice, 
we are re-publishing it, as written, 
to give it global coverage and offset the 
Fake News the Democrats' are reporting.  

True journalism is rare today, so we want to 
give it our full support and widest distribution!




While the press portrayed Hope Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, 
in reality she testified at length and in detail about all aspects of 
Trump’s presidential campaign. 


How Hope Hicks’s Testimony Destroyed The Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative.
The Federalist, 24June2019
By: Margot Cleveland 

Following the Thursday [13June2019] release of the transcript from Hope Hicks’s testimony before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee, the media quickly concentrated on the questions Trump’s former communications director refused to answer.

But while the press portrayed Hicks’s silence as all-inclusive, in reality Hicks testified at length and in detail about all aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. And that testimony established yet again that the Russia collusion narrative was a hoax. 

One theme of Democrats’ questioning of Hicks concerned the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians. Several times Hicks confirmed the lack of contacts between top Trump campaign members and Russia.

 “I’m telling you,” Hicks testified, “I wasn’t aware in the campaign of any contacts with Russian officials.

Later, when asked again what, if any, communications and contacts there were between the Trump campaign and Russian or Russian officials, Hicks noted that during the campaign she wasn’t aware of any but later learned of insignificant contacts, such as Jeff Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador at a foreign policy speech.

Hicks further testified that a Russian official’s post-election comment that Russia was “in constant communication or constant contact with members of Trump’s inner circle throughout the campaign,” “was not true.”

I’m not aware of anybody that regularly interacted with Mr. Trump that was a decisionmaker that advised him on a frequent basis that had, ‘regular contacts’ with any Russian officials,” Hicks stressed.

Hicks, who had previously worked for the Trump organization, also testified that she was not aware of any financial ties between Russia and the Trump Organization during the campaign. Nor did Hicks have any knowledge of any “foreign government providing cash or any other thing of value to Mr. Trump during the campaign,” or of any conversations during the campaign about Trump traveling to Russia (other than for the Miss Universe Pageant), or meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hicks further told the committee that she only “became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections” when the story hit the press.

Nothing on the DNC Hack Or Trump Tower 

Democrats on the Committee nonetheless pushed the Russia collusion narrative by attempting to portray an email Hicks received from the editor-in-chief of the Russian internet newspaper Vzglyad as evidence of a Russian conspiracy.

Joe Neguse
Democratic Representative Joe Neguse flipped to the much-referenced Robert Mueller report to read the special counsel’s finding that “one day earlier the publication’s founder and former Russian parliamentarian Konstantin Rykov had registered two Russian websites, Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru.

But Neguse’s attempt to implicate the Trump campaign in Russia’s online efforts to interfere in the election failed badly.

Hicks noted: “I don’t recall receiving the interview request”; I received hundreds of interview requests, sometimes daily.

Because Trump had no intention of participating in the interview, Hicks explained, she was not concerned about the identity of the outlet, and hadn’t even realized until after the fact that the email had come from a Russian.

Concerning the WikiLeaks hacks, Hicks made clear that the only discussion the campaign had was “...speculation about if there would be more emails or information released, but that was prompted by things in the media” and it wasn’t with certainty that more leaks would happen, but “with speculation and skepticism.”

No” Hicks stressed, Trump did not talk about WikiLeaks or the hack, nor did anybody else in the campaign, other than what was discussed in the public domain. Hicks also testified that during the campaign she had heard nothing about Roger Stone and his supposed relationship with WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange, or about WikiLeaks’ “divulgence of information about the emails of Hillary Clinton and Mr. Podesta” beyond media coverage.

In short, Hicks stated that during the campaign, Trump never indicated that he knew ahead of time that WikiLeaks was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hacks or that he had knowledge that additional information would be released.

Hicks also confirmed that before the election she had not been told that anyone at the Trump campaign had been offered information about Hillary Clinton.

The Trump Tower meeting was another focus of committee questions:
Hicks told the committee that she did not know about the Trump Tower meeting or Donald Trump Jr.’s emails about that meeting until after Trump was elected president. She had also never heard “... any discussion from any Trump Organization employee or Mr. Trump about an ongoing effort to pursue a potential Trump Tower Moscow at that time...” another thread woven into the Russia collusion hoax.

Hick’s responses during last week’s hearing also provided fresh insight into Trump’s behind-the-scenes response to news of Russian interference. Hicks noted that the campaign only “... became aware that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the 2016 elections...” when the story hit the press. The president’s former confidant added that any conversations she was privy to during the campaign concerning Russia interference in the election mirrored what Trump said publicly.


The Trump Collusion Narrative Is a Red Herring 

Then, when asked what specifically Trump said during the campaign about public reports that his team was coordinating with Russia, Hicks relayed that Trump called it “nonsense.”

Trump believed that the Russia collusion conspiracy “...was something that the Clinton campaign had made up to deflect from the information that they viewed as harmful to their candidate, to their campaign...” Hicks explained.  She also testified that she agreed with his assessment and that the “... unsubstantiated claims that [the Trump campaign] were coordinating with Russia was an attempt to distract and deflect.

Trump's former communications director added that the Trump campaign obviously knew there was no collusion, but admitted that had she been working instead for the Clinton campaign, she “probably would have taken a similar strategy.”

Hicks further noted that, whether the Russia collusion hoax was being peddled by the “Clinton campaign or speculated about in the media,” her discussions with candidate Trump focused on how to respond to the false claims.

Hicks also shared details of her conversation with Trump following his late-July 2016 off-the-cuff remark:
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Hicks explained that she informed Trump that “... some in the media had taken the expression quite literally, and that they were concerned he was encouraging foreign governments to, you know, locate those emails, and that that was obviously something that the media felt was extremely inappropriate and demanded a response from Mr. Trump and the campaign as to what exactly he meant by that.

Hicks stated that, “... both from Trump’s remark and her discussion with him after,” she understood the comment as a joke. When pushed about what Trump had said, Hicks conveyed that he noted
it was intended as a light-hearted comment.

Trump Was Concerned About Paul Manafort 

In practice, however, Trump took concerns about Russia’s meddling seriously, Hicks explained.


Paul Manafort
For instance, according to Hicks, after the media began questioning Trump’s campaign chair, Paul Manafort. Trump, not realizing
Manafort’s close relationship with Richard Gates, asked Gates to keep an eye on Manafort.

Trump questioned some of Manafort’s “past work with other foreign governments, foreign campaigns...,” and stressed that “none of that would be appropriate to be ongoing during his service with the Trump campaign...” Hicks elaborated. He also asked Gates to let him know “if anything led him to believe that was ongoing.”

Mike Flynn
When, following Trump’s election, then-President Barack Obama raised questions about Michael Flynn to Trump, Hicks explained that warning tainted Trump’s view of Flynn going forward.

Trump “... was a bit bewildered that, you know, of all the things that the two of them could have been discussing,” it was Flynn that came up.

(This detail also raises the question of Obama’s motivation and his efforts to sour the president-elect’s relationship with Flynn.) 

Hicks’ testimony also negated several other Democratic and media talking points on Russia interference and collusion. While Democrats attempted to portray Trump as unperturbed by Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, Hicks countered, “I think he was concerned, but I think he was simultaneously concerned that folks with a political agenda were going to weaponize that assessment to try to undermine the legitimacy of this election.

Misrepresenting the Truth for Political Gain 

Ted Lieu [CA-D]
Hicks similarly exposed how the media misrepresented information to further the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, when Representative Ted Lieu attempted to do the same during the hearing.

In 2008, Donald Trump, Jr., was quoted as saying ‘In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia’” Lieu quoted to Hicks.

Hicks acknowledged that she had spoken with Trump Jr., about this statement, but only to ensure “the media wasn’t misrepresenting the remark or presenting it in any misleading way.”

Hicks obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years.

And how was the media mischaracterizing Donald Trump, Jr.’s remarks?” Lieu quizzed.

The media “made it seem like there was Russian money coming into the Trump Organization in a way that was inappropriate or somehow sinister when Trump Jr., was merely describing the kinds of clientele that were purchasing luxury apartments, both in New York City, Chicago, and in South Florida.  They’re a luxury, globally recognized real estate company,Hicks explained, so “it would be odd if [the Trump Organization] weren’t selling to people just because they’re affiliated with Russia.

By the end of her nearly eight hours of testimony last week, Hicks had obliterated many of the Russia-collusion talking points pushed by Democrats and the media for the last three years, even more expertly than Mueller did in his special counsel report.

As one Democrat noted during the hearing, Hicks was “... with [Trump] every day,” during both the primary and general election.
She would have known had the campaign colluded with Russia.
Yet her testimony made clear there was no Russia strategy, significant contact, collaboration, or collusion, which is why when Hicks was asked whether she thought the President “might be angry about [her] testifying before Congress today...
her ready reply punctuated her significant—but unreported—testimony:
I think the President knows that I would tell the truth, and the truth is there was no collusion. And I’m happy to say that as many times as is necessary today.


----------------------


Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist

Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk 
to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty 
member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business
at the University of Notre Dame. 

The views expressed here are 
those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed?


Roberts Questions Trump's Immigration Barriers

New Update 07-01-2021
Over the last 18 months, we've learned that Chief Justice Roberts is a traitor, but we felt that he was coerced into this situation; so, we did our best to support him, assuming he was being blackmailed because of the illegalities of the adoption of his children.

Recently, we learned that he was a passenger on Epstein's plane, and a guest on his island, which would make him culpable in the Pedophile culture on Epstein Island, and it would explain how he obtained his "adopted" children.

In the last few weeks, we've read through the transcripts of a DOJ whistleblower who provided details on Roberts adoption process via Epstein, but it went further, indicating that Roberts sexually abused the children -- and farmed them out for others to abuse.  Worse, as part of the Epstein initiation process, pedophiles such as Roberts were prepped for permanent blackmail in the following manner:







That news caused us great anguish, but, then we learned of Roberts' entanglement in, and leadership of a coup plot targeting President Trump, which included both targeting and assassinating Judges, State Attorneys General, and fellow Justices on the Supreme Court.  According to the Whisteblower, Roberts arranged the assassination of Justice Scalia, whom he regarded as an obstacle to creating the new government totalitarian structure in America.

At this point, we simply await the arrest of Roberts and his removal from the Supreme Court, being the historical figure remembered as the Chief Justice who was a convicted felon, a murderer, and a traitor to his POTUS and to his country - guilty of TREASON!

Not since Benedict Arnold have we had such a scandalous person in our government - and we've had quite a few.  A match, perhaps, would be Hillary Clinton or 0bama, both of whom were involved in this conspiracy.


Update: 12-31-2020
[We are republishing this post on Chief Justice Roberts 
as he has clearly demonstrated he is unwilling/unable to 
carry out his duties as Chief Justice.  
He is clearly being blackmailed, and has become 
part of the Deep State Cabal.  We republish to 
familiarize those unfamiliar with his vulnerabilities!]

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]

-----------------------------------------
EDITORIAL UPDATE 
[08-14-2020 and again 18 Dec 2020]

It is being reported that Roberts has been implicated in the Epstein tapes. 

His appointment by George W Bush was allegedly based on his status as a blackmail candidate, thus being fully controllable.  

In turn, that explains his inexplicable positions on a number of critical decisions, to include ObamaCare challenges.  

It also incriminates George W Bush as an accessory to this blackmail saga, and to Obama's corruption, as the final piece of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-0bama Cabal.  

In brief, it appears that Roberts' two adopted children may have been part of Epstein's stable of illicitly acquired "orphans" or kidnapped children.

We expect to see Chief Justice Roberts resign shortly, which will likely create a stalemate on future cases being heard by the Supreme Court.  Appointment of a Roberts replacement would be expected to wait til after the November election. 

---------------



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.

Black Eye Club;
Roberts photo was removed

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.


[Editorial Note (12-31-2020): In reviewing this blog post to republish, we found that a photo of Roberts depicting his "Black Eye" had been deleted by "Guugle" and that an entire section of the post had been redacted - using an overlay of indecipherable Chinese characters.  We are republishing, in full  [but apparently, all photos of Roberts' Black Eye have been deleted from the Internet]  

We also have unconfirmed reports that Roberts' received his adoptive children from Jeffrey Epstein, which would explain the leverage of the Deep State over him.  
Bottom Line: Roberts must step down and be replaced by Trump, now! ]









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.  Since the mothers of the children Roberts adopted went to Latin America to give up their children for adoption, they skirted Irish adoption laws, and theoretically, Ireland would have no jurisdiction over the adoption.

The sad fact, however, is that Roberts technically 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 in which 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 has been blackmailed, and perhaps his family is being threatened; that situation may change as Trump drains the Swamp and rounds up Deep State criminals.

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!