Friday, March 22, 2019

Should Chief Justice John Roberts be removed from the Supreme Court if he broke the law?

The integrity of judicial decisions demands impartiality. But what happens when someone holds a gun to the head of the blind lady holding the scales of justice? In this case, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

This first quoted source is dated, March 1, 2019.
Hold the Revolution: Roberts Keeps Joining High Court Liberals
“Chief Justice John Roberts is showing a new willingness to side with the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal wing after the divisive confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Roberts joined the liberals Wednesday in two rulings that left the conservatives in dissent. Most notably, he cast the deciding vote to order a new look at the mental competence of a death row inmate who says he can’t remember the crimes he committed.”
Why would he do such a thing?

Chief Justice John Roberts has been a reliably conservative upholder of the Constitution since he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush in 2005. But in 2012, he went off the deep end over the ObamaCare matter. 

When the ObamaCare case went before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be inclined to overturn it on the rule of law which declared the mandate as a penalty was unconstitutional, but then he switched his position at the last moment and wrote the deciding opinion to uphold ObamaCare on a new technical definition where Roberts dreamed up how the mandate was a tax and not a penalty as it was enacted.
It was rumored at the time that he had been blackmailed with the revelation about illegally adopting two Irish born children.
Source:  Personal Liberty column written by Bob Livingston
More Evidence That The U.S. Government Is A Criminal Enterprise, July 15, 2013
“It’s likely that Chief Justice John Roberts, who switched his vote in the final minutes before the Supreme Court released its Obamacare decision, did so because he was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.”
But first some background. 

Do you know how Barack Hussein Obama became a U.S. Senator from Illinois? Obama won the seat in 2004 in an election against Alan Keyes who replaced the Republican Primary election winner, Jack Ryan. Therein lies the mystery.
Jack Ryan was an investment banker from Illinois. He was married to Jeri Lynn Zimmerman, former Miss Illinois 1989, from 1991-1999. After their marriage his wife was known as Hollywood actress Jeri Ryan who gained fame as a regular on Star Trek: Voyager for her role as the Borg, Seven of Nine. During their divorce, Jeri Ryan claimed in court that her husband took her to sex clubs in New York and Paris. The important point is the divorce records were sealed by the court. It was rumored that someone loyal to Barack Hussein Obama managed to get a hold of the records and release them to the media, which caused Jack Ryan to end his reelection campaign and resign.

Source: Jeri Ryan -- The Real Obama Girl
“If Barack Obama ends up winning the White House, the first person he should probably thank on Election Night is ... Jeri Ryan. Like, "Star Trek's" Seven of Nine Jeri Ryan? Yup.

Let's explain. Back in 2004, when Obama was a small-time State Senator from Illinois and running for a U.S. Senate seat, his GOP opponent was Jack Ryan, a super-wealthy businessman who was actually favored in the contest -- and who had gone through a messy divorce from ... Jeri Ryan.

The divorce was a slapfight of Hasselhoffian proportions, and Jeri's allegations that Jack had forced her to go to sex clubs in New York and Paris -- and wanted her to have sex with him in the clubs -- completely ruined Jack's campaign ... and Obama went on to win the seat. And now, perhaps, the one in the Oval Office.”
So is it even possible to question the integrity of any of Barack Hussein Obama's most trusted aids who managed to get a copy of records sealed by a court? It is not too far a stretch to imagine that given the level of political intrigue in Washington that someone would look for an angle to twist some arms. If Obama was so desperate to protect his landmark legislation, is it conceivable he would blackmail the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Back in August 2005, a website called Underneath the robes, which specialized in rumors heard in the hallways of our highest courts, ran a story about the adoption of two Irish-born babies by Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts.
In 2000, Chief Justice John Roberts and his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts adopted two infant babies born that same year in Ireland.  According to the law in Ireland at the time, children born in Ireland could only be adopted by citizens of Ireland. To skirt around the law, the two infants were flown to Bolivia where the adoption was finalized.
It is very possible the source for the blackmail, if that is what happened, came from this courthouse blog in 2005. All it would take would be a whisper in the ear that we know you broke the law so you better play our game.

3. So were the children adopted from Ireland?

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

4. How were the children adopted?

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts's sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption. As explained by Families for Private Adoption, "[p]rivate (or independent) adoption is a legal method of building a family through adoption without using an adoption agency for placement. In private adoption, the birth parents relinquish their parental rights directly to the adoptive parents, instead of to an agency.”
A person who identified herself as Ellen immediately posted the following comment to sum up the rumor.
Comment by: Ellen.
Does Ireland place children for adoption internationally? If not, then he probably did some finagling to have the children sent to Bolivia so they could adopt them in that country. But that doesn't really make any sense, as he and his wife are not citizens of Bolivia.

A possible scenario: The Roberts wanted to adopt, put out some feelers, found two pregnant women around the same time in Ireland, and it was all arranged privately. I don't think it's common practice to set out to adopt one child and then suddenly have an opportunity to adopt a second almost immediately after. Usually, for the common folk, you have to wait and then go through the process again for the 2nd child.

But the scenario above would enable them to skirt US (?) and Irish law, perhaps.

The fishy thing is who was responsible for the children after they left Ireland and arrived Bolivia? I don't think an adoption agency would be party to whatever occurred here.

Posted by: Ellen | August 09, 2005 at 11:07 PM
Just today, I read CNN author Joan Biskupic's abbreviated excerpt from her book, “The inside story of how John Roberts negotiated to save Obamacare”, on CNN Politics. Given the fact that CNN is one of the prime sources of Fake News, it is easy to suspect anything relating back to the Democrats self-anointed holy man, Barack Hussein Obama, would be scrubbed clean of any innuendo.  I wanted to ask her what she may have known about the rumor that the Chief Justice was being blackmailed to change his position on ObamaCare because of his illegal adoption of two Irish children from Ireland. The only contact I could find was for Kait Howard, Publicist, BASIC BOOKS so I sent her an email. I will update this if, and when, I get an answer.

Sunday, March 17, 2019

Fighting for life in the Commonwealth of Kentucky

Fighting for life in Commonwealth

FRANKFORT, Ky. (KT) - At least now we have clarity on the issue. Now that the hard left has dropped the pretense of “safe, legal and rare” or “a collection of cells is not a fetus,” we can better see beneath their masks. With the passage of a barbaric new law in New York, we now see that the true agenda of pro-abortion advocates across this nation is the mass murder of innocent babies, even after they have been born and are crying for their mothers.

That’s a difficult line to read, much less to allow to sink in to one’s consciousness. Tragically…monstrously, it is an accurate reflection of the liberal position in New York and Virginia, and is sadly true for some liberals in Kentucky as well.

I am grateful that the vast majority of my fellow Kentuckians will not stand for this in our Commonwealth. We will not allow the most innocent among us to be treated in this horrific manner. That is why, led by our administration, we have passed some of the most effective pro-life measures in America today. I applaud the General Assembly for the overwhelming bipartisan support of these measures. On average, these bills passed with over 80 percent support of representatives and senators from both parties.

In Kentucky we have laws to:

·        Ban abortions after 20 weeks (when babies can feel pain).

·        Require an ultrasound before abortion so the mother at least has the option to see her baby.

·        Protect babies from being dismembered in the womb.

My legal team has been working tirelessly to defend many of these laws in court. Defending Kentucky law should be the responsibility of the attorney general, who Kentucky voters elected for that purpose. But Andy Beshear not only has refused to defend these laws, and thus defend babies, he recently wrote a letter that can only be described as desperate.

In a futile attempt to intimidate our legislators from passing additional protections in this session, Beshear decried proposed bills for 2019 as unconstitutional. Beshear has now made a habit of being to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion. He previously (and erroneously) wrote that our 20-week abortion ban would be unconstitutional, even though Planned Parenthood has never challenged that law in court.

Speaking of court challenges, the effectiveness of our pro-life laws and of my administration’s legal team was made evident in recent weeks when Planned Parenthood and other hard left, pro-abortion groups announced their intent to pool their ample economic and legal resources to fight against Kentucky babies. Those groups are bringing $90 million into our state, along with additional armies of liberal lawyers to try to tear down Kentucky laws protecting life.

As we ponder the heinous nature of the New York law and the bill that was shamelessly proposed in Virginia, Kentuckians must realize that pro-abortion radicals are even suing for the right to dismember a third trimester baby.

They are suing for the right to commit barbaric acts and our attorney general is standing with them…not us. Our administration is even forced to defend a 20-year-old law in court that merely requires an emergency room transfer agreement to ensure the safety of the mother and baby in the event of a botched abortion.

Not long ago, I was mocked by a handful of liberals in the media and entertainment industry when I cautioned about the “culture of death” that now pervades video games, much of our “entertainment” and a startling amount of our music. Can those same critics honestly make light of those cautions in the midst of the grotesque celebrations in New York as they legalized infanticide?

Recently, liberal politicians and entertainers were lauded as courageous during the Women’s March for defending a “woman’s right to choose.” Applauding infanticide and playing word games by calling murder a “choice” as one panders to hard-left supporters is anything but courageous. On the contrary, standing up for life, with the current state of our culture and against the countless millions of lobbying dollars from leftists, is a display of true courage. I am grateful to all those men and women who take that valiant stand every day.

As long as I am Kentucky’s governor, I too will take that courageous stand. As long as the Bevin administration exists, we will fight with all of our intellect, our talent, and our heart to defend the innocent. We will fight for life.

Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky.

Friday, March 15, 2019

Why are Republicans in Congress afraid of defending our country?

Sometimes I get a little sick listening to the purists complain about everything President Trump does. How many people realize that in January 2017 when Trump entered the White House it was still staffed by hostile people loyal to Barack Hussein Obama. In the ensuing two years Trump has been working in the most toxic atmosphere ever seen in Washington trying to get his agenda in place and the lily-livered Republicans have been back stabbing him ever since.

Donald Trump was being given a lot of bad advice from the very beginning. Yes, he could have and should have fired all the Obama loyalists, not just among the White House staff but in the Justice Dept. and in the FBI. He also should never have appointed any sitting member of Congress to his Cabinet. And Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was a perfect example why. Sessions was a reliable conservative but he was too closely attached to the Washington establishment and in the end his seat was taken by a Democrat.

The only proper place there should be any purists in our government is on the Supreme Court as in the example of the late Justice Anton Scalia who referred to himself as an "originalist". We certainly don't need them in Congress. Our country is facing a monumental crisis and we MUST defend our borders otherwise our Sovereign Nation will cease to exist. We have been looking at a slow moving invasion by hostile forces and our Republican leaders seemingly refuse to acknowledge it. The only way to protect ourselves is to build a wall along our Southern boarder. And President Trump is determined to get it built any way he can.
My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Democrats speak to Democrats in coded messages only they understand.

Have you ever heard of Aesopian Language? I am sure you have heard it spoken but didn't know what it was. This is the definition from Wikipedia.
"Aesopian language is communications that convey an innocent meaning to outsiders but hold a concealed meaning to informed members of a conspiracy or underground movement."
Here is a perfect example from recent news. House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi says: "We do the Lord's work." And makes you think of the only Lord you know, Jesus. But Nancy isn't talking about Jesus, she is talking about Barack Hussein Obama, the deity of the Democrat Party.
Obama was their god. Pelosi still does his work. This is who she worships.
These pictures are how Democrats envisioned him. All the photos on the top row are official White House pictures taken by the White House photographer. Isn't it coincidental that so many images managed to pick up a glowing halo around his head to convince low-educated people this was a holy man of some sort.

All the pictures on the bottom row are from various left wing publications that show how Obama is adored by his followers. And the similarity to Christ-likenesses is just another coincidence.
Never assume you know who or what they are talking about because Democrats speak to Democrats in coded messages only they understand.
 My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.