Ooh, a New Roberts Blackmail Theory


The Obama conspiracy generator machine that is owned by every respectable wingnut has churned out yet another crazy theory and it’s being endorsed by Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, who sent out an email to followers linking to this message board post that lays it out in rather silly detail. Watch how they take no evidence at all and weave it into a certain conspiracy.

In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become 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.

Ooooh, more to the story. Gosh, what is it? Press reports said that the children were adopted “from Latin America,” but our brave wingnut sniffs out another possibility:

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. 1

TIME had a “web exclusive” on the Roberts’s (7/24/05) and quoted a family friend as stating the kids were “born in Ireland 4 1/2 months apart.”

So they were born in Ireland but adopted from Latin America. Okay, there are many different ways that could have happened. Perhaps the parents traveled or moved to a Latin American country. Perhaps they were taken in by a (likely) Catholic orphanage and sent to Latin America. Perhaps they were first sent to a relative who lived in Latin America. Or maybe the parents were from Latin America but living in Ireland at the time the children were born and later went back home. We have no way of knowing at this point, of course, nor does the fevered mind behind this conspiracy theory. But trudge on, he does:

According to The New York Times, based on information from Mrs. Roberts’s sister, Mary Torre, the children were adopted through a private adoption…

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 1) prohibits the adoption of Children to non-residents, and 2) also does not permit private adoptions, but rather has all adoptions go through a public agency.

This would explain the children’s origin from a “Latin American country”, so as to circumvent Irish law.

And no, I have no idea why this guy keeps capitalizing “children.” Wingnuts just have a strange love of the caps key.

Evidently Roberts arranged for this adoption through some sort of trafficking agency, that got the children out of Ireland and into that Latin American country, from which they were adopted, thereby circumventing two Irish laws — entirely illegal, but perhaps quasi-legitimized by the birth mothers (two) 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. Come 2012, those two children have been with the Roberts’ for roughly 10 years, since they were adopted as “infants”.

Notice how quickly he goes from a couple of facts, with many plausible explanations, to Roberts “undoubtedly” spending a lot of money to do an illegal adoption.

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 U.S. 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 from Roberts “undoubtedly” using an illegal adoption to Obama obviously using this to blackmail Roberts in a “coup.” Truly a wondrous thing is the wingnut mind, able to leap wide logical gaps in their claims in a single bound. Faster than a speeding syllogism.

Comments

  1. slc1 says

    Maybe I missed something here but if this information was available and in the public media as far back as 2005, what was there for Obama to “blackmail” Roberts about? As I understand the practice of blackmail, the purpose is to cause the victim to do what the blackmailer wants on pain of exposure. If the “scandal” was already exposed, there is no such threat. I may be old and I may be slow but it don’t make no sense to me.

  2. jnorris says

    Well, Michelle Obama IS blackmailing Roberts into eating healthier local grown green vegetables and less ice cream and cake.

  3. Larry says

    By golly, Jeeves, I think he’s got it! Like all the best conspiracy theories, it’s ever so simple.

  4. LightningRose says

    “And no, I have no idea why this guy keeps capitalizing “children.” Wingnuts just have a strange love of the caps key.”

    In German, all nouns are capitalized. Therefore, all wingnuts are Nazis.

    Hell! It’s better than most wingnut conspiracy theories.

  5. Doug Little says

    Why is “infants” in quotes? Is there some conspiracy, also, that they are actually very small spies for Soros?

    Because they are lizardmen, why this matters will become evident… however there is more to the story… No no stay with me here… You see, You see, now it all makes sense, (wink).

  6. ragingapathy says

    Glad my wife and I have employer-sponsored health care, so that I’m not Property of The State. I mean, without this blackmail threat and without employer-provided insurance, I could have suffered the indignity of getting affordable health insurance no matter my current state of health. I’m so relieved!

  7. ricko says

    It’s all so very clear to me now.

    Wait… What exactly was the point? Obama uses the time machine to go back to 2005, and then uses it again to nominate John Roberts, then… But where does the conspiracy come in after the fact?

    He’s have to take us all back to before the first act (say to 2004) and the we’d be free of the Citizen’s United Ruling…

    Ah, I get it! It’s all so crafty!

  8. says

    “Also, their blonde hair and fair skin do not seem conventionally Latin American. 1″

    Someone should mention to Judson that Latin America has a sizable population of people descended from German immigrants. Not everyone who lives there looks like Juan Valdez.

  9. Trebuchet says

    @roundguy:

    And that’s no doubt how they got Roberts to administer the oath of office to a KENYAN twice!

    That would be four times: Twice in 2008, because Roberts jumbled the oath the first time, and twice in 2012, because the official inauguration date was on a Sunday but the public ceremony on a Monday. Both of which have been seen by the wingnuts as proof of some sort of conspiracy and that Obama isn’t really President.

  10. marcus says

    This is amazing! Obama can barely get a Republican nominee approved by Republican senators but he can subvert the will of a Supreme Court justice with a blackmail scheme that has multiple layers of nefarious complexity. The man is totally incompetent/an evil genius. Oh the tangled webs!

  11. says

    Even if it were an illegal adoption, so what? It was legal in the US. We don’t have an extradition treaty with Ireland. All that would mean is Roberts have to cross off one vacation destination.

  12. dmcclean says

    If we are talking about conspiracies, politicians, and trouble with the law in Ireland then I nominate Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

  13. jameshanley says

    Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were “from a Latin American country”, but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American

    Apparentces can be deceiving.

  14. D. C. Sessions says

    Well, if I were the Red Chief Justice, I would certainly be afraid of the Republican House of Representatives bringing a Bill of Impeachment against me and the Senate bringing 67 votes for removal from office. The Democrats, after all, have complete control of the Legislature.

  15. says

    Funny how it’s always blackmail in these theories. You’d think someone would claim it was simple bribery, that Obama gave Roberts lots and lots of money to do his evil bidding. But I suppose mere bribery wouldn’t make Obama sufficiently evil enough to get the conspiracy believers all hot and bothered.

  16. says

    But the question remains: Why was Roberts so adamant about adopting Children from Ireland?
    First, Irish Children.
    Second, Obama -> O’bama.
    Conclusion: Roberts “voluntarily” “adopted” Obama’s albino “Children”. But why? This means Barack Hussein Obama’s blackmail goes even deeper. But for what purpose? Some people say that he did it to put Kenyan Usurper Children on the Junior US Supreme Court.
    Now, I’m not accusing him of this fiendish plot under another plot, but some people are. People like me.

  17. iangould says

    So what went wrong during Heller, Citizens United and all the other cases where Roberts ruled contrary to the administration’s position?

  18. yoav says

    It’s extremely simple. Obama used the time machine he got from Soros to replace the Latin-American Irish children Roberts got from his illegal adoption agency with demonic space-lizard pod babies that while looking like “infants” were in the exact step of development to have their eggs mature at the perfect time so the hatchling would emerge, just in time for the Obamacare decision, and attach itself to Roberts’ spinal cord putting him under Obama’s mind control fluoride ray.

  19. marcus says

    @23 yoav Well fuck me! It is so obvious and transparent when you just take the time to look at it!11!!one!!

  20. Ichthyic says

    Even if it were an illegal adoption, so what?

    well, one thing I will give these nutters, is that if this WAS an illegal adoption (big grain of salt there), they did have a point, irrelevant as it is to anything regarding any ruling by SCOTUS, that there is a very large issue with black market adoptions globally, and this would only contribute to that, and be a serious issue by itself for any judge, let alone a SCOTUS justice.

    but…. they actually abandon any real pretense of the seriousness of that in favor of an inane conspiracy theory.

    if it is true, they could be actually doing something productive and attacking a black market adoption ring, but no, they have to focus on some insane plot about Obama being the antichrist or some fucking stupid nonsense like that.

  21. Doug Little says

    yoav @23

    I know right! It’s just so simple once it’s all laid out in front of you, we’re through the looking glass here people. Grab your tinfoil hat, gas mask and AR-15 and meet me in the bunker, post-haste.

  22. Abby Normal says

    Ace of Sevens @19, isn’t that true of all our extradition treaties? I wasn’t going to go into whether or not extradition treaties were applicable to the topic at hand. I was only pointing out that we do in fact have one with Ireland.

Leave a Reply