“The New York Times.”
Need one say anything further to inspire you to ask, perhaps a little apprehensively, “Okay, what now?”
It is this: The New York Times is running background checks on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’…children.
|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.”|
Let’s see, what do they hope to find? That the adoptions were illegal somehow? That the children were paid for? That they are somehow Roberts’ illegitimate “love”-children? That somehow, somewhere, some way, there is a besmirchment they might procure and smear across the candidacy of this man?
Don’t bother with the rhetorical “have they no shame?” The day they lost that is so far back in the mists of time it’s barely perceivable. Waaay back there in the generation before last, back with the Times’ Mr. Duranty and his wonderful look at the future in Soviet Russia. That was proof-positive of the Times’ proclivity for liars and propagandists.
The only shame attached to the New York Times accrues to the people who still read it. Hang down your heads, folks. Or maybe just have them examined.