Obama Just Issued This Sickening Threat to the Supreme Court of the United States

(Before It's News)

By: Voice of Reason

FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!

www.thelastgreatstand.com

THIS IS THE MONTH!

AMERICA NEEDS TO HOPE AND PRAY FOR JUSTICE ROBERTS.

FOR THIS NATION TO SURVIVE, ONE STEP WILL BE TO DELIVER A CRUSHING BLOW TO THE MOST TYRANNICAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT IN HISTORY AND STRIKE DOWN OBAMACARE ONCE AND FOR ALL. 

FOR JUSTICE ROBERTS TO DO THAT, HE’LL HAVE TO WALK AWAY FROM HIS LIFE’S WORK, AND PUT HIS FAMILY IN DANGER…

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Let’s go back in time for a moment shall we? Just days prior to the now infamous Obamacare decision, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 4 conservative justices in striking down the Obamination currently dismantling our nation’s economy. CBS reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

[Audio/Video below cannot be seen in Newsletter - have to go to Blog]

Say whatever you want about Chief Justice Roberts, and the decisions that led both HIS family and OUR nation to where we are, but whatever you say is just time wasted. It’s done. He did what he did, and we are where we are. As per usual, in a NEVER ENDING TREND OF TREASONOUS behavior, Obama used the resources at his disposal to put his foot on Chief Justice Roberts neck. I wrote the following in my post titled: WAS JUSTICE ROBERTS BLACKMAILED BY OBAMA TO PASS OBAMACARE:

An interesting dilemma exists. Obama can continue to blackmail Justice Roberts and allow his secret to stay hidden, thereby allowing him to retain his position on the Supreme Court… OR… he can blow the whistle, Justice Roberts (normally more conservative) will have to step down, and Obama can appoint another liberal wackjob to take his place.

Elections sure do have consequences. My, my, they sure do. 

Tea Party.org reports: Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.

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.

Drudge did an article in 2005 and it can be found here.

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?

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.

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.”

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.”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 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.

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”.

Some might feel an impulse dismiss this information, mistakenly believing Roberts and his wife were doing a good thing for a children needing a home.

That would be an inaccurate belief. As recognized, 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. Such actions are creating 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 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 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 it is consistent with Obama’s Chicago-style politics, that has previously involved opening other sealed divorce records in order to win election.

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Roberts has got to be FURIOUS with the fact he NOW knows through the VIDEOS OF PROFESSOR GRUBER, that the writers of Obamacare knew damn well it wasn’t a tax, never intended it to be a tax, and yet that’s what they argued before the Supreme Court LYING their butts off, and made a total mockery of Roberts. I don’t think either Obama or the rest of his liberal ilk envisioned Obamacare having a “Round 2” in the Supreme Court. 

GET YOUR POPCORN READY!

I would think Roberts decision is not only an easy one from a legal perspective, because we KNOW it was not intended as a tax, nor was it constitutional as a tax either, but Robert’s is likely excited to finally be able to reveal his original decision before being blackmailed, and spare the country from any more of this Frankenstein of a bill. I’ve covered the unconstitutional tax in the past, so I am not going to do it again here, but the path to that resolution is MUCH longer, and probably would not be heard until there was zero chance of reversing course. Even now, to reverse course on Obamacare will be BRUTAL, but insurance companies are in the business of making money, and I am sure they are not waiting for the law to be struck down to begin planning a return to a SANE healthcare where men don’t need birth control. 

I’m sure his own Impeachment and private family life being dragged through the press will be on his mind Chief Justice Roberts mind too though. His oldest child is 10 if I recall. Is he willing to put them through that? Would you harm your children? As outsiders we want to make it a black and white decision, but it has many layers, and I for one hope and pray that as Americans we pray for Justice Roberts and his family during what is going to be VERY TOUGH time no matter what. With absolute control of the both houses of Congress, Roberts is as likely to be Impeached as Obama was under the Democrat led Senate, but my guess is Roberts would step down in disgrace. 

WE BETTER PRAY HE WAITS UNTIL 2016…

AND PRAY THE GOP TAKES THE WHITE HOUSE… 

OTHERWISE…

OBAMA WILL FLIP THE SUPREME COURT TO 5-4 LIBERALS!!!

What does more damage? Obamacare or an out of control President AND Supreme Court? I’m not sure I know right now. This is all very very complicated, and much more involved than most every day Americans are aware of. 

PLEASE SHARE THIS TO MAKE THEM AWARE!

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

Join my Twitter feed | Like my Facebook page

At some point this month, the Supreme Court of the United States will issue a ruling on a major challenge to the Affordable Care Act, one that could undercut the very foundation of the law.

The Justices will rule in King v. Burwell on whether the part of Obamacare related to federal subsidies for health insurance should be limited to state-run exchanges, as the law is written, or extended to everyone enrolled in the federal exchange, as has been the practice of the current administration.

President Barack Obama recently weighed in on the subject at a press conference in Germany during a G-7 summit, challenging the Court to rule in his favor and suggesting they should never have taken up the case in the first place.

“This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” Obama said, warning the justices that ruling against his Obamacare subsidies would require a “twisted interpretation” of the law.

Although there is a distinct possibility that the Court will rule against Obama’s subsidies, the administration has made no efforts to develop or publicize a contingency plan for dealing with the inevitable messy fallout of an unfavorable ruling for them.

According to Fox News, Obama said it is safe to “assume” that the Justices will “play it straight,” and rule in his favor, intimating that for them to rule otherwise would be a “contorted reading of the statute” and a “twisted interpretation.”

He went on to say that doing so would be a “bad idea,” one “that throws off how that exchange operates” and would cause millions of people to lose the subsidy offered to them on the federal exchange.

In truth, the Obama administration used their own “twisted interpretation” of the law to originally offer the subsidy on the federal exchange and would be largely to blame for people losing subsidies they never should have been offered in the first place.

Given that SCOTUS has most likely have already made its ruling on the case, but simply hasn’t announced it yet, Obama’s threats were not only unseemly, but also useless.

Which, of course, is par for the course for this president.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you think Obama has no business threatening the Court to rule in his favor.

Read the article here at Conservative Tribune:

By: Voice of Reason

FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!

www.thelastgreatstand.com

THE VOICE OF REASON

• WEBSITE:                                http://thelastgreatstand.com/
• FACEBOOK:                            https://www.facebook.com/LastGreatStand
• GOOGLE PLUS:                      https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LastGreatStand
• TWITTER:                                https://twitter.com/#!/LastGreatStand
• TEA PARTY COMMUNITY:     https://www.teapartycommunity.com/profile-151600/
• PATRIOT ACTION:                  http://patriotaction.net/members/TheVoiceofReason
• YOUTUBE CHANNEL:            https://www.youtube.com/user/LastGreatStand/
• SEEN.IS:                                  https://www.seen.is/members/home
• RIGHT.IS:                                 http://right.is/contributor/pages/351/169/bio.html

• George Soros Funding Illegal Sign Ups Court Forbids Obama to Do
• Ron Paul: Will Victims, Suspects Of Deadly Waco Biker Rally Receive Justice?
• Grand Jury Indicts Ex-Officer Michael Slager in Death of Walter Scott
• Undue Aggression and the Role of Race in America’s Law Enforcement
• World Bank Whistleblower Karen Hudes Writes to Bilderberg Steering Committee
• Importing Rapists: Three MS-13 Gang Members Rape Teenage Girl in Long Island
• America’s See-No-Islam Problem Exposed With Boston Jihadism
• DoJ Asks Surveillance Court To Ignore Federal Court’s Ruling On Illegal NSA Spying
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the triumph of deviancy
• Talk Nation Radio: Kayaks and Soap vs. Big Oil and Trash