Justice Scalia murdered? Sealed his fate 4 days before his death?
by Jon Rappoport
Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4. (see: The Hill, 2/13, “Greens faced with nightmare scenario at the Supreme Court”)
With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.
With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead. (see: The Washington Times, 2/16, “GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama SCOTUS pick”)
We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.
And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).
It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.
If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.
If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”
Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind.
Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.
“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.
Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.
However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.
The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.
The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be expressed and ratified by the member nations.
The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.
In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.
Drive economies further into despair. Move more jobs out of industrialized countries.
Create further poverty and chaos.
And then bring new order in behind that—one planet, under the tight rein of one worldwide political and economic management system.
That’s the true meaning of the climate-change agenda, notwithstanding solemn promises and heraldic pronouncements about replacing lost energy with new renewable technologies.
“I have an idea. Let’s cut our electricity-use in our home by 30%, while we figure out how to replace it with some new source. That’ll work. I’m sure of it.”
On top of all this, the entire manmade-warming hypothesis is riddled with fraud and guesswork dressed up to look like United Nations science. A hypothesis is supposed to be able to make useful and specific predictions. The warming hypothesis is a dud in this regard. It was never meant to be science—it was always a strategy designed to cut energy production on planet Earth, torpedo economies, heighten human suffering, and usher in an elite Globalist triumph.
This is what Justice Scalia was going up against.
If he was murdered, there was sufficient reason.
The FBI can do two kinds of investigations, depending on the orders of the Attorney General: heavy or lite.
Heavy means leaving no stone unturned. It means taking control of the Scalia’s body now and doing whatever can be done with it, in its embalmed state, to determine cause of death. It means raking wackaloon Judge Guevara over the coals, along with US marshals, to find out exactly how the verdict of “natural causes” was reached. It means extensive interviews with everyone at Poindexter’s ranch. Wall to wall forensic analysis of rooms and spaces at the ranch. And so forth and so on.
Lite means a brush-off, meant to avoid any disruption in the present scenario.
So far, from what I see, the FBI is doing Lite. Scalia’s body should already be on an autopsy table.
There continues to be no uproar inside the Beltway about the absurd, insane, useless declaration of death by “natural causes.”
And there is something else going on. It’s the convenient mind-control program that says, “Mustn’t disturb the dead. Don’t interrupt the expressions of sadness at his passing. Don’t dishonor the man by raising questions about his possible murder. Give the family their privacy during this period of grief.”
It’s the passivity of the obedient mind. Whatever induced mood, fabrication, lie, omission can feed and expand that passivity…is deployed:
“We need to be more accepting. He was an old man in ill-heath. He passed away. Natural causes. The great cycle of life. Be gentle. Nothing to see. Move along, slowly.”
“Possible murder of a US Supreme Court Justice? Please, not at this time. It’s a discordant idea. Unharmonious. Let the man go gently into that good night.”