Posted on 07/03/2012 10:50:55 PM PDT by STARWISE
That’s why it’s beginning to sound like some kind of blackmail to me.
IMO it was just too quick of a complete 180 to just be intimidation.
“If O wins he will get to place 3 more.”
Yes. So many thousands of conservatives are saying that they will refuse to vote for Romney (Yes, I agree with much of their views about him), and say that they will vote for any conservatives in 2012 for Congress and Senate instead.
But the problem is that there is little chance of an Obama veto proof majority. And Obama will continue to rule for another four years and change America forever.
Oh, I'm pretty sure we could. The question is; "Why would they want to?"
I think Groucho Marx said something to the effect that "I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me."
Congress shall have the power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States"
The City Council exists at the pleasure of Congress, and could be overruled at any moment by appropriate legislation.
I believe your point could very well be the key for Roberts perfidy against so many USA citizens. With that explanation I believe there were personal agreements very much in line with the giving Obama the oath of office out of public view and other Robert’s showing favor to Obama. This history of Roberts coziness with Obama indicates to me that there is more about Roberts that the USA people need to know. Roberts deserves no respect for all past incidents. Robert’s pieces of silver to betray USA citizens could well be two ineligible immigrants.
El Dictator Obozo to John the traitor, "Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"
A question for all of us: "When and how did Pelosi know that her side would win?"
The people we know have made threats to people at high levels are Soros’ people.
They threatened the media heads including (presumably) Roger Ailes if anybody at Fox reported on Obama’s eligibility problem. The threat was apparently something that was independent of Obama’s actual election and was serious enough that the media heads told their on-air personalities that their careers would be over if they reported - and strongly suggested that their lives and families’ lives were questionable. IOW, it very much sounds like the media heads felt so seriously threatened that they themselves would assassinate on-air personalities if they strayed from the orders given.
Soros told both Hillary and Obama during the 2008 primary that they were planning to destroy the US economy and asked which was on board with them (only Obama was).
They threatened Bill Clinton with harm to Chelsea after seeing to it that the 2 people who had agreed to present a petition challenging Obama’s eligibility at the Dem Convention (Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs) both died within 2 weeks of the convention.
We can’t pin it to them for certain, but the man (Kam Kuwata) who organized the 2008 Dem Convention - and had witnessed a bizarre situation where Obama was either drugged, hypnotized, or subjected to some other controlling ritual - laid dead in his home without anybody in his busy schedule reporting his absence, and the Obama-supported CA AG refused to have an autopsy performed. This angered Sen Dianne Feinstein (who was friends of Kuwata) to such an extent that she actually announced the Bin Laden assassination an hour before Obama himself did - which strongly suggests that Feinstein recognizes the Obama/Soros people as the enemies.
So if we’re talking about serious threats, I think we may be talking about George Soros. Soros has said that he owns the democratic party and has also said that he is afraid that America will win the war on terror because then America and capitalism will be strong - and Soros believes that he, as God, has a duty to destroy the world’s 2 great evils of America and capitalism. IOW, Soros has declared war on America, and he owns the democratic party.
That doesn’t explain his red eyes and visibly unhappy demeanor when reading the decision. It also doesn’t explain his own acknowledgement that the taxation angle is just an excuse - a way that it is POSSIBLE to claim that Obamacare is Constitutional. It doesn’t explain why he was not able to adequately explain his change in position to the conservative justices. It doesn’t explain why he wrote the entire decision AND 3/4ths of the dissent. The logic he used defies logic. None of those things support the idea that he really believed what he wrote.
And I cannot believe that he would believe that the court was being APOLITICAL and respecting the separation of powers.... by Roberts personally changing what Congress itself expressly called a “penalty” (as opposed to a tax, which was specifically deliberated by Congress, was central to the issue of where the bill had to originate, and directly impacted the CBO’s assessment of whether the bill impacted the budget) into a tax instead. Justice Kennedy rightly slammed Roberts on that and pointed out that the judiciary actually just wrote their own legislation in that decision. There is NO WAY that his decision can be justified on the basis of respecting the separation of powers, since Roberts just TRAMPLED the separation of powers.
That was a very insightful post and fantastic analogy. I believe you’re dead-on. I believe the people that America has become are not capable of great things as a body until they experience the tyranny their own degeneracy creates. They’re going to have to learn the hard way. Unfortunately, the faithful are saddled to much the same fate in the here and now as the degenerates.
Unless there are still enough of us to stand up and stave this off for a while, I think the faithful are going to have to eventually realize that the America through which we were blessed for so long no longer exists, and our government and society are both equivalent to the depraved world of Nero. Our only rock and defense in a depraved and unjust world will be the Lord. The comfort is that many other peoples have faced this situation, and the Lord is enough.
The pitfall for tyranny is that if the people experience enough of the pain before the control is absolute, the awakening of faith and courage could come before tyranny is complete. That may have been what happened when Reagan was elected. Since then, we’ve got a lot more people shooting holes in the boat and a lot more openly, so the same kind of staving off of tyranny may not be possible now, but we can try our best at least.
Even if we can stave off total tyranny in this next election, if we are to survive for any extended length of time we will need to buck up the courage to either take the guns away from those shooting holes in America or else break their trigger fingers, like you say. The enemies of this country have figuratively (and sometimes literally) danced in the streets celebrating our demise and if we are not willing to destroy the enemies then the nation will die by suicide.
I PRAY that someone looks into it and tells me they are LEGAL, then I can just DEPISE him eith no guilt!! :)
I think we could have a winner here but do you think that Roberts didn’t apply for citizenship for those kids when they were adopted?
I’m well aware of that, but it’s a silly argument: in reality it amounts to nothing, especially from our side. For all intents and purposes, the statement is correct.
If he's afraid of the left, maybe he should be afraid of the right.
Was it Mrs. Robert's fear of being excluding from the Annapolis Junior League?
I’m well aware of that, but it’s a silly argument: in reality it amounts to nothing, especially from our side. For all intents and purposes, the statement is correct.
Whatever he sold us out for, let’s make the sale meaningless. Whatever he was afraid us, let’s make it happen. If he’s done something crooked, expose him!
Roberts was in the majority in Citizens United and United States v. Alvarez. The latter decision struck down the Stolen Valor Act.
Wasn’t it about June 2 that Ginsburg was all over the news for making a statement to the press that people will be surprised by the ruling, that it isn’t over yet? The article was accompanied by a picture of Ginsburg, kind of winking.
Spot on.
THINGS THAT MAKE YOUR HAIR HURT
____________________________________________________
TOOBIN: Chief Justice John Roberts Was ‘Red-Eyed And Unhappy’ - Grace Wyler | Jun. 28, 2012, 11:09 AM
CNN’s top legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin re-emerged from the court with a strange tweet about the state of Chief Justice John Roberts when he read today’s ruling in favor of upholding President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.
toobin tweet
~ ~ ~ ~
Supreme Adoption
August 4, 2005
US Supreme Court nominee John G Roberts has two adopted children. We may find out soon whether the adoptions are charity or baby theft. Here is the report by Matt Drudge.
collapse
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
Roberts children
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.”
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.
Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES action declared: Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
Developing...
Source: Drudgereport
Addendum: The New York Times ran an article Adoptions in Paraguay: Mothers Cry Theft in 1996 describing the techniques used to supply adoptive children to Americans.
http://www.fixcas.com/cgi-bin/go.py?2005b.Roberts
~ ~ ~ ~
August 04, 2005
The Roberts’ Adoptions: What We Do Know
Excerpt:
Earlier today, Article III Groupie noticed a dramatic upward spike in traffic to her blog, fueled largely by Google searches like “John Roberts” adoption, john roberts children, “judge roberts” adopted children, etc. She also noticed a number of odd searches that combined the topics of the New York Times, adoption, and our fabulous Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. (such as “new york times” roberts adoption).*
A3G was somewhat puzzled by these searches. But then she came across this Wonkette post, which in turn directed her to this Drudge Report item, which indicated that the New York Times is investigating the adoption records of Judge and Mrs. Roberts’s two absolutely adorable, adopted children: Josephine Roberts, age 5, and dancing Jack Roberts, age 4.
Now, an apparent digression. In his excellent essay “Bad News,” which appeared this past Sunday in the New York Times Book Review, Judge Richard A. Posner conducted a penetrating, endlessly interesting analysis of the predicament of the mainstream news media.** He noted the competition that the media now face from bloggers, observing that “bloggers are parasitical on the conventional media. They copy the news and opinion generated by the conventional media, often at considerable expense, without picking up any of the tab.”***
So back to our SCOTUS nominee, Judge John Roberts; his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts; and their two kids, Josie Roberts and Jack Roberts.
The topic of the Roberts adoptions is obviously a sensitive one that should be handled with care. Accordingly, in order to avoid crossing any lines or violating the privacy of the Roberts family, A3G will demonstrate Judge Posner’s point: she will function parasitically with respect to prior news media coverage of the Roberts adoption, by bringing to your attention various facts that legitimate news organizations have already unearthed and reported.
Thus, if you have a problem with any of the information appearing below, you should take it up not with A3G, but with the professional news publication that originally broadcasted it (to an audience vastly larger than A3G’s).
Without further ado, here are a few facts about the Roberts’ adoptions, as previously reported by the mainstream media (which A3G has merely collected and reshaped into an easy-to-follow, question-and-answer format):
*snip*
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.”
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.
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html
~ ~ ~ ~
Obama Threatens The Supreme Court… Again
Posted by Andrea Ryan on Friday, May 4, 2012, 10:43 PM
Excerpt:
“We are confident that this will be upheld, because it should be upheld.”
Remember this Obama statement that caused national outrage in March? He was talking about his failed ObamaCare fiasco that had just suffered three days of complete humiliation before the Supreme Court.
When his 100% partisan and unconstitutional health care law collapsed under the slightest weight of legal examination by our nation’s highest court, Obama decided to change the rules. But, since his public challenge to the authority of the Judicial Branch brought outrage and embarrassment, he decided to continue his threats to the Supreme Court through back channels, instead.
According to the Canada Free Press,
Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/obama-threatens-the-supreme-court-again/
~ ~ ~ ~
Excerpt from the dissent by the four:
“The dissent concludes with this blistering section:
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not.
It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain.
And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them.
The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.
Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course to- day are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn.
In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.
The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments.
Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment.
The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril.
Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act in- valid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.
Wasn’t there video of the redo for swearing in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.