Of Justice Scalia, the Constitution, Obama’s tyranny, and Cuba

President Obama’s unilateral and so illegal decision to restart his and Mrs. Clinton’s personal and Africa-ruining war in Libya is a good reminder of what America lost with the death of Justice Scalia. Whether or not you agreed with Justice Scalia’s decisions, you could at least be confident that he was one of the three justices on the Supreme Court — the others being Justice Alito and Justice Thomas — who knew what and why the Founders put what they did in the Constitution, and that they intended its clear language to be interpreted in a manner that did not read into the text things that are not there and that are meant to contribute to the building of a tyrannical national government.

The Founders also included a demanding amending formula which was intended to be the only tool with which the Constitution could be changed. Neither Obama, George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton obeyed the Constitution in terms of securing an official congressional declaration of war for the almost entirely unnecessary wars they started or joined. Each should have been impeached for that offense alone.

In regard to Judge Scalia’s replacement, the Republican leadership in the Congress was foolish to say it would not consider Obama’s nominee. Obama can now nominate another under-qualified Democratic political apparatchik as he did in the cases of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. He will nominate a lawless, authoritarian like himself, one who is a woman, a minority, an LBGT person, a Black or Latino, or some combination of those and the other slave-like, Constitution-hating groups that worship at the altar of Obama’s tyranny. He will then be able to say that the Republicans refused to consider the nominee because they are prejudiced, misogynist, homophobic, etc. In such case, sadly, the establishment Republicans who control Congress likely would cave in, and perhaps even approve another justice who serves only to promote the Democratic Party’s plans for tyranny and minority rule.

Much better for the Republicans to have adopted a scorched-earth policy. They should have genially encouraged Obama to send up one nominee after another for a hearing — and then refuse to confirm each in their turn. It would have been the first time that establishment Republicans acted as if they know, as do the people who gave them a majority in each house, that the Democrats are no longer just the other political party, but rather the proud and lethal enemy of liberty, commonsense, and religion that must be brought to ground — and soon — in one manner or another.

In passing, it is worth keeping an eye on Obama during his trip to Cuba. The media report that he is sending a plan to Congress today that will close Guantanamo Bay prison and seeks money to facilitate the plan. While the Republicans and some Democrats oppose any such plan, and there is, I believe, a law that must be repealed to allow such an action, Obama never obeys or enforces laws he dislikes and may act — as on Libya — unilaterally, dispersing the prisoners as he sees fit.

Moreover, Obama knows that if a Republican is elected president the prison would be reopened, and that the only way to prevent that action is for Obama to give the Guantanamo Bay military base back to Cuba and immediately withdraw all U.S. military and civilian personnel from the base.

You might think that a president would never do such unconstitutional things, after all he would be breaking the law and a treaty that states Guantanamo Bay is leased to the United States in perpetuity? Well, maybe not, but how many unconstitutional actions has Obama taken in the last eight years that have gone unchallenged by either the Republicans or the pro-tyranny Democrat automatons who serve in Congress? In starting unconstitutional wars, rewriting legislation after it is law, using the IRS to neuter Conservative groups, and, generally, refusing to enforce any law he does not like, Obama has committed a string of impeachable offenses. Why not one or two more for the road?

Be Sociable, Share!
This entry was posted in Articles and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Of Justice Scalia, the Constitution, Obama’s tyranny, and Cuba

  1. Andzhelo says:

    I have read from sources that Ruth Ginsberg is going to resign very soon, because of her bad health and to give Obama a another appointee to continue his agenda/ party's agenda. A local newspaper in Chicago said that the day Scalia was buried, Obama was at the white house and did not go to the funeral. Don't smart people found that odd and that the story changed multiply times and reported dying from a heart attack with unwrinkled clothes and a [pillow over his head. You spoke about Cuba, but i wish you had written about the following: http://www.infowars.com/saudis-call-for-arming-syhttp://www.infowars.com/report-putin-threatens-tuhttp://www.infowars.com/video-obama-cracks-joke-a

  2. Zeitsev says:

    Mike – "If the Democrats are …the proud and lethal enemy of liberty, commonsense, and religion that must be brought to ground, then what does that make the Republicans?

    The great American catastrophe of modern times IMO was the Presidency of George W. Bush. He and his Administration's inattention to the obvious threat of terrorism from bin Laden brought us the horror of 9-11; an incompetently handled punitive expedition into Afghanistan resulting in bin Laden's escape; the lost opportunity to engage in an rapprochement with Iran, which had sanctioned the Northern Alliance cooperating with our Special Forces; the subsequent further alienation of Iran from the US by labelling them as part of the 'Axis of Evil'; a war with Iraq waged under false pretenses; an occupation of that country so ineptly executed that it generated a long, bloody and totally unnecessary insurrection; and occupation policies so foolish that they not only dragged us into a quagmire for a decade, but will echo to our detriment far into the future.

    By way of economic imbecility, we can hold Bush and the Republicans responsible for the savaging of tax policy that took us from a federal budget surplus and paying off the National Debt by 2040 to one of increased and perhaps ruinous indebtedness; failing to secure the borders after 9-11 – despite controlling both houses of Congress; the expansion of Medicare Part D and waging of two wars without raising taxes; the crashing of the Economy in 2008 which can be directly traced to his total failure to police Wall St. from engaging in highly speculative investments; and the subsequent bailout – at taxpayer expense – of AIG and of banks 'Too Big To Fail'.

    Both parties are two sides of the same coin, run by the Establishment elites.

  3. jeffneu2006 says:

    Yes I agree Obama is a complete idealist and doesn't care about the Constitution or American history. But it seems to me that Obama, foreign policy wise, has been perhaps better than most conservatives. Hasn't Obama been the toughest against Israel? The Iran deal is an indication of that. Just tonight I heard Ted Cruz in his post Nevada speech say that the U.S. will return to be an unapologetic supporter of the State of Israel. Obama also hasn't over reacted to Russian involvement in the Middle East. Listen to Rubio he sounds like he's giddy to start a war with Russia, which could truly mark the end of this Republic. Hopefully Trump wins this thing.

  4. JACQUES says:


  5. Brian says:

    Mr. Scheuer,

    I’m sorry, just a clarification. What’s the difference between what the Republicans say they will do and what you suggest they do in regards to an Obama appointee? And regardless of what they do won’t the Democrats still, as they always do, claim victim with whom ever the Republicans reject?

    Thank you.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing and please call me Mike. The difference I had in mind was a demonstration that the Republican party intended to so something — anything — tangible with the majority in both houses the voters gave it in 2014. Stonewalling the process seems a little too easy, and I think the Republicans need to show they have some courage to face down this president and not just avoid him. You are certainly right, however, the Democrats will cry \”victim\” whichever way it goes. Let them. Some of the pundits are saying the Republicans\’ approach will hurt them in the election, but people seem so angry to me that this might not make the cut of top influential issues. In my own view, a permanent 4-to-4 court would be fine. No republic should be ruled by nine people who are in no way responsible to the electorate; the Supreme Court is another source of tyranny in our system that needs to have its purview enormously reduced — as the Constitution permits — perhaps to the point where it deals only with commercial issues, separation of power cases, state-vs-state disagreements. I bridle at the idea that one person — be it Justice Scalia or Justice Ginsburg — can determine the future of 300-plus million Americans, just as I do with the idea that one man can take us to war. MFS

  6. Ken says:

    Three observations:

    One, the Republicans refusal to consider a SCOTUS nominee can't be considered as racist, sexist, homophobic since Obama has yet to nominate anyone. Rather, if they simply held hearings and kept rejecting Obama's nominees then he and the gigantic left wing hate machine of the media could claim the Republicans are all the various "ist" pejoratives mentioned above.

    Two, I think it's obvious that Obama will pick someone who is an extreme left wing ideologue and implacably hostile to the Constitution so he/she can damage it beyond repair in the coming years along with the other left wing justices. Obama wants his legacy to live on in Scalia's replacement and five left wing SCOTUS justices will be the gift that keeps on giving for decades until the USSA collapses of its own dead weight similar to the USSR.

    Third, the Republicans will talk and act tough for a while, but once Obama, the Democrats and the media begin upbraiding and savaging them for "obstructionism" they will fold like they always do while claiming they had to do so to avoid alienating moderates in the 2016 presidential election. But it will be the rank cowardice they've come to be known for these last seven years under Obama.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. I am afraid that I tend to agree with all you have written, although I would personally like to see the rejection of a string of nominees from the Democrats\’ various slave plantations. My guess is that polls would show an uptick for the Republicans if they gave a polite hearing and dismissal to three or four candidates from Democratic freakdom. I also think the rather desperate picture you paint of the republic\’s future is all too true. As the days pass, I think more and more that the Republican Party is as much in need of destruction as the Democratic, and that Trump might well be the best bet to destroy it and start anew. Trump is certainly no sweetheart but he says what he thinks and may just possibly do what he has said he would if elected. Just imagine a U.S. presidential candidate saying, as Trump has said, that he intends to be be resolutely even-handed when it comes to Israel and Palestine (NB: Though why we need to deal with either is beyond me.) I was listening to FOX in the car at several points on Friday and several of their announcers were speaking of Trump\’s words and they sounded quite overcome with righteous indignation; I suspected they also had blood was squirting out of their ears. If Trump builds on his words and begins to talk more fully about non-intervention as a proper U.S. foreign policy — unless we are attacked — he may attract many who are sick of endless and unnecessary wars. After all, \”evenhanded\” is more a less a \”synonym\” for neutral. MFS

  7. Brian says:

    Respectfully, Re your observation, "they intended its clear language to be interpreted in a manner that did not read into the text things that are not there." What's "there" or "not there" is itself a matter of interpretation. And we don't have the founders here to tell us what their intentions were. Any sense of their intentions is a reconstruction on our part. Furthermore, this idea that there is a single, true, original meaning in a text is a modernist fallacy. Readers make meaning of a text; Scalia would never admit it, but he created meaning out of it too. He, nor anyone else, ever just reads what the text "says." Documents don't mean anything until someone interprets them. Please, come off this notion that the Constitution speaks and we listen. That's false and always has been.

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. I would say that we do not need the Founders to be here to understand precisely what they intended. We can start by reading the classics — especially Tacitus, Livy, Seneca, and Polybius; then move onto Machiavelli, particularly his Discourses on Livy; then onto that supreme libertarian work, Cato\’s Letters (by Trenchard and Gordon); then the English republicans, John Milton, Algernon Sydney, Joseph Addison, James Harrington, and others; and then, lastly, to two incredibly influential books in the Founders education, namely, the Bible and John Bunyan\’s Pilgrim\’s Progress. In that reading we can come to understand the most important aspects of the Founders education.

      Next, we can read the official documents they left us, the Declaration and the Constitution, of course, but also Jefferson on the Rights of British North Americans and the magnificent joint production of Jefferson and John Dickinson, On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms. With that group of documents we can see how they implemented what they had learned from their educations.

      Finally, and most important, we have the Founders\’ personal writings, diaries, letters, anonymous articles, common-place books, annotations, speeches, and memoirs, as well as what the said during the Constitutional convention and the fierce, often angry, but always extraordinarily informative debates that accompanied the ratification of that document. With respect, we can know what the Founders intended if we take the time to read about it. We also know one more indispensable thing, and that is the Founders believed that human nature never changes and so the best way to know what to expect and prepare for in the future — good and bad — is to study the past actions of men. I fear that out educational system from pre-school to Ph.D. is so ahistorical and simplistic in its teachings that few Americans under fifty know how very easy it is to discover precisely what — and why — the Founders thought, said, wrote, and intended what they did. Also easy to know, is that this country cannot exist for much longer having diverged so far and so gratuitously — and among some, with so much hostility — from what the Founders intended.

      Regarding Justice Scalia and your point about him, I must say that I agree with much of what he wrote, but when you say he too was \”creating meaning\” I must concur at least in so far as saying that I cannot find any grist in the Founders\’ private and public works that would condone the opinions the late Justice and the majority wrote that have unleashed an endless and truly gross flow of republic-destroying corruption into our politics in the form of unlimited campaign contributions. Surely it is clear beyond challenge that the Founders fought a war against what they regarded as a corrupt British government and afterwards created a government intended to be very hard to corrupt. It also is clear, however, that many of the guards they put in place to resist corruption have been disassembled or simply ignored. MFS

      • Andzhelo says:

        Hey Mike, I'm in college, what would be the best books in your mind on the founders and political science, especially foergin policy? There's a lot of disinformation on the founders and religion manly Christianity , could you say something on that if it allowed?

        • Mike Scheuer says:

          Thanks for writing. I think the very best book on the history of U.S. foreign policy is the following: Walter A. McDougall. Promised Land, Crusader State. The American Encounter with the World Since 1776. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. It is truly an exceptional work by a tremendously insightful and honest man.

          On Christianity and the founding generation have a look at two books of essays, (a) Daniel L. Dreisbach, et. al., The Founders on God and Government. Lantham, MD: Rowand & Lttlefield, 2004, and (b) Daniel L. Dreisbach, et al., The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life. Notre Dame Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009. On the idea that a republic cannot survive without a religious (Christian) population, see, for starters, Washington\’s Farewell Address, various letters and public words of John Adams and his son John Quincy, and Machiavelli\’s Discourses on Livy. Hope this helps. MFS

          • jeffneu2006 says:

            Im in my 20's and have a BA in history, I thought for contemporary USFP the best were Michael Scheuer(Marching Towards Hell) and Andrew J. Bacevich(Limit's of Power and Washington Rules.) I have all three in audiobook format and they are excellently narrated.

  8. BillW says:

    Mike, why didn't you tell the FBI about the two 9/11 bombers who came to the US for flight lessons in 2000?

    • Mike Scheuer says:

      Thank you for writing. One of the many great lies about the whole 9/11 business is that the FBI didn\’t know about the people in this country. The FBI had multiple officers sitting in CIA spaces and they routinely stole reams of classified documents and took them to the FBI. An illegal action. In one case, we became aware that an FBI officer had taken an empty xerox-paper box, filled it with classified documents, and took it out of the building to the FBI. This kind of behavior occurred for most of a decade and was repeatedly reported to senior levels of the Agency and nothing rpt. nothing was ever done to stop it. These big, tough CIA officials cowered at the thought of the FBI Director\’s wrath. I had, for example, an FBI officer in New York call me from his car on a non-secure line and begin reading to me from a copy of a classified cable that one of his fellow FBI officers had taken from CIA headquarters. I reported it and nothing changed. In short the FBI had the information officially and via theft and did nothing with it. This canard is long past due to treated for what it is, after the fact ass-covering by the FBI. With that put to bed, the only pertinent question remains, as always, why Bill Clinton and his acolyte advisers did not kill bin Laden when they had the chance? MFS

  9. Zeitsev says:

    That's hardly the only pertinent question about bin Laden.Why did Condi Rice not convene an informal meeting between Tenet and Freah on bin Laden's plans before 9-11? After 9-11, why weren't the two battalions of Rangers that were requested to seal him off at Tora Bora deployed? Why was Rice's former colleague Philip Zelikow – with a clear conflict of interest- allowed to be Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission ? Why was the Commission itself seriously underfunded? Why was Gorelick permitted to be a Commission member when it was she who had set up the protocols which limited FBI and CIA sharing of information? If as Tenet said the system was "blinking red" in the days before 9-11, what did he specifically do about it?

    The whole investigation was a joke, and the tragedy is it happened right before all our eyes. It is reflective of what's wrong with Washington – two political parties which put their own self interest above that of the people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *