Antonin Scalia: murder?

Justice Antonin Scalia, opining on the Arizona case, said that the States would have run for the exits had they known what was to come.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On February 12, 2016, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court died suddenly. That death shocked conservatives everywhere. Barack H. Obama still held the Presidency. Conservatives rightly held any nomination by him automatically suspect. They had two reasons. First, no one could replace Antonin Scalia as a conservative. Second, they knew Barack Obama, famous for false-flag pseudo-operations involving throwdown weapons at the Mexican border. Surely he would nominate a judge more likely to find that individuals have no right to keep and bear arms. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, unless you are willing to enlist in the National Guard.

Merrick Garland as a replacement for Antonin Scalia

Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee, confirmed their suspicions. True enough, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano pronounced him

the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president in the modern era.

Note the key phrase: by a Democratic president.

Merrick Garland investigated the Oklahoma City Bombing, under Jamie Gorelick.1 He relentlessly prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. In the course of that investigation, he forced himself to walk through ruins and look at bodies and body parts. Witnesses say he wept openly when recalling his investigation twenty years later.

Merrick Garland survived the Clinton Purge of the Justice Department in 1993. We must therefore assume he met the Clintons’ criteria for leftism. Those bodies and body parts would have filled him with a terrible resolve: to confiscate all firearms in private hands. One can imagine him reacting as Jack Webb, the Great Rhabdouchophile2 of Television City, would have done. No person, except a law-enforcement officer, an active-duty military service member, a Very Important Person, or his bodyguard, ought to own, or so much as touch, a firearm.3 Would the world countenance more Murrah Buildings? Conservatives had little doubt that, had he sat on the Court instead of Scalia, the case of District of Columbia versus Heller would have had an outcome diametrically opposed to its eventual outcome.

For that reason, and in the hope of electing a conservative President that fall, the Senate refused to act. And, of course, the people elected Donald J. Trump. He in turn nominated Neil Gorsuch, who now sits on the Court.

But did the Senate have further good reason to sit on the nomination of Merrick Garland? Did Barack Obama “cut a lucky break” when Antonin Scalia died?

Or did someone make sure of Antonin Scalia?

Evidence: the Podesta E-mails

Recently Wikileaks, which dedicates itself to revealing official secrets, released a collection of e-mails to and from John Podesta. These e-mails include two that become relevant to the death of Antonin Scalia.

Three days before Antonin Scalia died, John Podesta sent this e-mail to Steve Elmendorf, eventual campaign manager for Hillary Clinton:

Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard.

For “the Vineyard,” read Martha’s Vineyard, the neighborhood of the elite. Paris has its Sixteenth Arrondissement; America has Martha’s Vineyard. And what does that phrase wet works mean? In Russian, it reads mokroye delo. It stands for delicate, super-sensitive, if-I-told-you-about-it-I’d-have-to-kill-you operations. In the days of Stalin and Khrushchev, the organization known first as GPU, then NKVD, then MVD, then MGB, and finally KGB set up a super-secret “agency within the agency.” Lavrenti Beria ran it first. He named it Smyert Shpionam (Death to Spies), or SMERSH for short. It specialized in mokroye delo, “wet works.” This included political murder, kidnap, and sabotage. In English, we call such things black operations.

Now read Steve Elmendorf, writing back:

I am all in

Sounds like it will be a bad nite (sic), we all need to buckle up and double down

Death pronouncement over the telephone

Three days later, a Justice of the Supreme Court lies dead in the guest-room bed of a ranch house. The owner: John Poindexter, a Friend of Hillary. (Poindexter invited Scalia to his ranch to enjoy some duck hunting. Why the Justice accepted, CNAV cannot speculate. Nor do we know who accompanied him to or on Poindexter’s ranch.)

Poindexter “discovers” the body, then telephones the local coroner. And the coroner pronounces Justice Antonin Scalia dead over the telephone. The coroner sent no EMTs or other technicians to certify the death. Such certification is routine. It happened in the case of the death of the wife of your editor, twenty-one years ago.

Ian Fleming once said:

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action.

To paraphrase: the first e-mail is happenstance. The second is coincidence. The third piece of evidence is pronouncing someone dead over the telephone. This ought to be a clue to conspiracy to commit political—and Justicial—murder. A clue worthy of investigation.

Too quick to dismiss

Of course many will quickly dismiss the Podesta e-mails as irrelevant, out of context, or whatever excuse one can make. But those who would dismiss the matter so quickly have two problems. First, no methods or agencies of proper investigation remain. The Federal Bureau of Investigation compromised itself irreparably with the very candidacy of Donald Trump for President. James Comey swore never to let Trump’s election happen. Peter Strzok cooperated more than willingly to that end.

Second, Antonin Scalia had long proved a thorn in Progressive sides since he took his seat on the Court. Four years earlier, Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker heaped typical Progressive scorn on the Justice. At issue: the Court’s decision on Arizona v. United States, Case No. 11-182. Arizona passed its own immigration law after Obama signed “the DREAM EO.” Attorney General Holder sued, of course. And won—at least partially.

Wrote Scalia in ringing dissent:

The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

Scalia went on to rail against holding the sovereign States

at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws.

Patrick Henry’s rat

And this gem:

Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Well, Patrick Henry “smelt a rat,” did he not? In fact he refused to attend the Constitutional Convention. Maybe Antonin Scalia just found the rat Patrick Henry “smelt.” But Jeff Toobin doesn’t think so.

All the Justices, over the past quarter-century, have felt the sting of Scalia’s disapproval at one point or another. It bothers some of them. In her early days on the Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, as I wrote in “The Nine,” was wounded by Scalia’s nasty-grams. But over time, O’Connor learned to brush him off. She would say, “Oh, that’s just Nino.” Alas, it is.

A vindictive President

But Barack Obama, by many accounts, displayed a vindictive attitude. Earlier in 2012 the Court heard oral argument in the case of Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Sebelius. This was, of course, the Obamacare Case. The Hill carried this story of Democrats’ fuming over Scalia’s comments at oral argument. The story didn’t mention Obama. But remember: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was Obama’s “baby.”

Nor should we forget Obama’s bitter reaction to the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that ruling the Court in effect cleared Hillary: The Movie for wide release. Obama fumed about that at the State of the Union Address, with the Justices present.

In fact Obama stayed away from Scalia’s Court funeral. Obviously Obama never forgave Scalia.

He wouldn’t “brush off” Antonin Scalia; no, sir. One could more easily imagine him pumping his arms and bellowing,

I want that [illegitimate son] dead! You got that? DEAD!!!

Or if he didn’t, Valerie Jarrett would. Hillary Clinton might take a more cold and calculating attitude. Many persons, once having a relationship with one or both Clintons, or about to testify against them, turn up dead. The site TruthOrFiction.com finds individual cases easy to dismiss—one at a time. But let’s remember what Ian Fleming said about happenstance, coincidence, and enemy action.

What to do

First and foremost, President Trump must clean house in federal law enforcement. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Trump should appoint a Special United States Marshal. That worthy must root out agents of the FBI and other agencies who work for partisan political purposes. CNAV recommends former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, for the job.

And afterward, maybe Marshal Joe can gather a Cold Case Posse to investigate the death of Antonin Scalia. Sheriff Joe seated such a Posse to investigate the Obama birth certificate. He remains today the only trustworthy law-enforcement officer of national standing and name recognition.

The murder of Antonin Scalia—if murder it was—availed nothing for the Progressive Left. The Senate denied them an opportunity to put a gun grabber on the Court. (For which they have never forgiven the Constitutional Right.) But that does not make Justicial murder acceptable—or any less likely to have happened.


Endnotes

1Jamie Gorelick sat on the Nine-eleven Commission. She it was who walled off the FBI and the CIA, not permitting them to communicate. Result: nineteen hashshasheen did the foul deed for which everyone remembers them.

2Rhabdouchophilia literally means “love of them who carry the sticks.” In Greek, rhabdouchos stands for a police officer. The first police were Athenian municipal slaves, armed with sticks, who controlled crowds at public events. Rhabdouchophilia means an unreasoning, naïve trust and affection for police generally.

3That Jack Webb took this position, none can doubt. In at least two episodes of his Dragnet television series, his character defended gun control. One had him infiltrating a citizen militia movement. Another had him treating with scorn a citizen’s concern about an invading army confiscating weapons. “Do you really expect anyone to do that in this nuclear age?” he and his sidekick, Henry Morgan, ask.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

4 Responses to Antonin Scalia: murder?

  1. […] weapons deciding any question of gun control. Jack Webb, the Great Rhabdouchophile of Hollywood, raised that specter on his television show, Dragnet. Read the relevant dialogue in Season 3, Episode 1, “Public […]

  2. […] fall then, let us project an awakening today. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, before his death (murder?), asked: “Where is the moral outcry for life?” The pulpit should be raising that outcry now. […]

  3. […] of you, reading this, find this inference difficult to accept? You should not. CNAV stands by its assertion of more than two years ago. Barack Obama and/or his minions murdered Justice Antonin Scalia. Then […]

  4. […] Like any war game, this is speculation, and therefore fiction. How an actual Texit plays out (assuming Texans get to vote on it, and vote Yes) depends on the attitudes of the principals involved. CNAV does not represent that it has any inside information concerning definite plans, by either the Texas Nationalist Movement, the Texas Military Department, the United States military, or the Abbott and Biden administrations. Rather, it bases its speculation strictly on certain attitudes that certain persons, particularly on the Washington side, have expressed, and a certain Justicial death that CNAV has reason to believe was in fact murder. […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.