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.