WHY DID JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS VOTE FOR HEALTH CARE?
No excuses. It just looks like he sold out the conservative movement. (7/4/2012)
Why did Chief Justice John Roberts apparently flip his vote at the last moment to support Obama’s health care bill? He has not been clear about this, but there are obviously a few possible explanations that merit exploration in the Torah Code. The first is that his ruling was a sincere reflection of his opinion, and in particular his concern about the welfare of citizens who have no health insurance. Darker possibilities include issues of deception about his opinions when being considered for his life-long post, bribes, or fear that he or her family would be physically hurt or killed, either by people under the command of the President, or by those in the insurance industry. This article will explore all these possibilities by looking at what is encoded on both sides of the only ELS that exists in Torah for a transliteration of JOHN ROBERTS. Click here to see a matrix with B. OBAMA TAX and HEALTH.
Figures 1 (above) and 2 (below) display the only ELS in Torah of a transliteration of JOHN ROBERTS (which occurs at skip -68,964) . Figure 1 uses a row split of 2 to show an ELS of B. OBAMA. Figure 2 below uses no row split. In Figure 1 the computer program (CODEFINDER) sees 34,482 letters on each line (half the skip of JOHN ROBERTS), placing each letter of JOHN ROBERTS 2 rows apart. On Figure 2 the program sees 68,964 letters on each line. This is the skip of JOHN ROBERTS. His name letters are therefore displayed in vertical sequence (but backwards, of course, because the ELS of his name has a negative skip).
STATISTICAL ANALYSES FOR FIGURES 1 AND 2.
Normally in this section I comment on the individual statistical value of terms shown, and the combined value. However, with Figures 1 and 2 it isn't appropriate to discuss combined values because the terms shown can support widely different motives for the vote by John Roberts. The best that can be accomplished here is to rate each a-priori term with respect to the probability that it would be so close to the axis term, JOHN ROBERTS.
As noted in the header between the two figures, both figures display the only ELS in Torah of a transliteration of JOHN ROBERTS (which occurs at skip -68,964). Figure 1 uses a row split of 2 to show an ELS of B. OBAMA. Figure 2 below uses no row split. In Figure 1 the computer program (CodeFinder) sees 34,482 letters on each line (half the skip of JOHN ROBERTS), placing each letter of JOHN ROBERTS two rows apart. On Figure 2 the program sees 68,964 letters on each line. This is the skip of JOHN ROBERTS. However, in calculating significance, if a term could have been shown without employing the row split of 2, the calculation will be based on no row split, though it may require expansion of Figure 2 to show it. This is the case for JUSTICE FOR THE ORPHAN & WIDOW AND THE FOREIGNER and for THREATENER.
On the table below the terms found are arranged in order the probability of being found, with the most significant key words at the top and the least significant terms at the bottom. As such, the most significant terms deal with John Roberts loving the foreigner which would include B. Obama if it turns out he was born in Kenya, and being cursed for doing so. One can also make a case for the matrix backing his concern for orphans (he has in fact adopted two children - shown on Figure 1), widows, and the family - though not necessarily his own family which has likely attained many new enemies after his surprise vote. Other than having a significant ELS of B. Obama, the matrix did not provide any astounding evidence to back the idea that he (1) took a bribe, (2) was honest, or (3) was physically threatened. Perhaps what was noteworthy in terms of the lowest significance was the word conservative. His actions prove that if he once was conservative, he no longer is today. Roberts certainly is strongly encoded with B. Obama, but given that he had to swear Obama in twice (due to his mistake in delivering the oath of office) on January 20, 2009, and given that he has now validated the ObamaCare message, that is to be expected. There does appear to be a slight chance that his family was threatened, but this could just be over the future opportunities for his children. Both words that related to threats had low statistical values, though the family term was quite significant. Note: For terms that are not at skip +1 (or in the open text), but which are at an ELS, the number of times in Torah is given for a skip range determined by the Roffman Skip Formula and Skip Tables.
| Term | Rows and columns required | Area required in letters | Number in | Odds against match with John Roberts |
| And you shall love the foreigner (or And love the foreigner only @ skip +1) | 9R*11C | 99 | 2 | 1539.9 to 1 |
| Because you have done this cursed are you. (only @ skip +1) | 9R*36C | 324 | 1 | 951.3 to 1 |
| For the orphan & widow (only @ skip +1) | 9R*40C | 360 | 2 | 423 to 1 |
| The family or family (only @ skip +1) | 9R*35C | 315 | 3 | 323 to 1 |
| B. Obama @ Skips -68959 | 17R*30C | 510 | 3 | 199.7 to 1 |
| Cursed are you. (only @ skip +1) | 9R*36C | 324 | 6 | 157.3 to 1 |
| Widow (only @ skip +1) | 9R*35C | 315 | 18 | 54.3 to 1 |
| Orphan (only @ skip +1) | 9R*40C | 360 | 20 | 42.8 to 1 |
| President (only @ skip +1) | 9R*24C | 216 | 68 | 21.3 to 1 |
| Bribe @ Skips 2 to 29) | 9R*9C | 81 | 310 | 12.6 to 1 |
| Honest (only @ skip +1) | 9R*5C | 45 | 639 | 11.1 to 1 |
| Justice (only @ skip +1) | 9R*44C | 396 | 85 | 9.6 to 1 |
| Threatening @ skips 137923 to 137982 | 13R*21C | 273 | 126 | 9.4 to 1 |
| Threatener @ skips 10 to 97 | 9R*46C | 414 | 90 | 8.7 to 1 |
Conservative three 4-letter three 4-letter synonyms @ skip 68960 to 69053 | 9R*29C | 261 | 532 | 2.7 to 1 |
OBAMA’S NON VIOLENT THREAT TO THE COURT IN APRIL 2012. While the following story does not cite a violent threat (which, if made in public, could get Obama impeached), it does demonstate a pattern of continuing imtimidation of the Supreme Court by Obama.
By Daniel Strauss - 04/03/12 10:33 AM ET
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) on Tuesday accused President Obama of "threatening" the Supreme Court as it prepares a ruling on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law.
Speaking a day after Obama warned against "unelected" judges overturning the law, Johanns said Obama crossed the line with his remarks. "What President Obama is doing here isn't right," Johanns said Tuesday in an interview with local Nebraska radio station KLIN. "It is threatening, it is intimidating."
On Monday, Obama said that he was "confident the Supreme Court would uphold the law." He added that it would be "unprecedented" for the high court to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and said that the court should not act without "judicial restraint" and overturn "a duly constituted and passed law."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) chastised Obama for the remarks on Tuesday. "Only someone who would browbeat the Court during the State of the Union, and whose administration stifled speech during the health care debate, would try to intimidate the Court while it's deliberating one of the most consequential cases of our time," McConnell said in a statement.
"This president's attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court falls well beyond distasteful politics; it demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for our system of checks and balances."
The Supreme Court dedicated three days in March to oral arguments over the constitutionality of the law. A number of the justices, including swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, asked questions that legal observers said could indicate strong skepticism of the legality of the law. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that the law was in "grave" trouble after the first day of oral arguments.
Since then, the Obama administration and Democrats have expressed confidence that the law would be upheld while waging a public pressure campaign aimed at court. A ruling is expected in June.
Johanns said Obama is wielding an unprecedented level of power through the healthcare law. "What is the president saying is that he's saying, 'Look, I get to decide what's right and wrong for every individual in this country through the individual mandate and there is no judicial review. The courts can't interfere with my power.' Well, wait a second here; that turns upside-down over 200 years of precedent."