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?