WorldNetDaily isn’t perfect, but it gets skewered by the left for its “bias” while CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times invent things every minute in order to mislead and misinform the public, but the left doesn’t notice that.
I remember in the early 2000’s, when I was a Democrat and liberal Christian who hadn’t read the Bible, that some of the stories I came across on WorldNetDaily caught my attention as a Christian seeking to follow Christ.
And on this Scalia matter, why shouldn’t people be suspicious about it?
“Ordinary” people kill spouses who get in their way every day. And in all of human history, we continuously see people either openly assassinating powerful people, or plotting to do so in secret. Just the Bible alone records quite a few of these types of plots.
We also seem to take it as an unremarkable fact of life when it reportedly happens in other countries.
As one of the judges giving conservatives a 5-4 majority, Scalia held enormous power. And the timing of his death, and the suddenness of it, even at 79, should rightfully raise questions.
It’s appalling that there would even be an argument that because someone is 79, their death must be due to natural causes and can’t be murder. Older people can hold tremendous power, given people reason to kill them, but because they’re older, the younger are less likely to value their lives, so it’s easier to shrug off their deaths and assume the death was natural.
I’m sure, though, that if the situation was reversed, including with the left facing the loss of a 5-4 court majority, prominent liberals and quite possibly even some Democratic politicians would be calling for an autopsy.
And given Scalia’s powerful position, power he exercised over the people, and which he voluntarily undertook and kept while he might have retired, there is an overriding public interest to conduct an autopsy.
The suspicions of ordinary people are not indications for doing autopsies.
What's needed is either the permission of the family or, barring that, a legitimate forensic reason for doing it. Those reasons are spelled out in Texas law and public suspicion is not one of them.
Faith, take a look at #62. Thanks.
Why would they not want us to know whether he had blockages? If it was a heart attack from natural causes the evidence should be right there.
With Breitbart I think they found one artery that had 40% blockage, and that was pretty much it, IIRC. Didn’t have the “widow maker” physiology that most often causes sudden, unexpected death. He hadn’t seen a doctor within the previous year and he had no prescription or street drugs in his system, which doesn’t seem like somebody who was being treated for an urgent heart problem...They didn’t bother to look for a tiny dart-entry hole in his body.
So the autopsy raised questions. As did the acute arsenic poisoning death of one of the technicians at the coroner’s office shortly before the autopsy result came out - which should have been easy to prevent and to find the source of the arsenic but the LAPD lied about the death rather than genuinely investigating it...
Sometimes an autopsy is not wanted because it would raise even more suspicions. If there was a “natural” heart attack, then the physiology of the autopsy would substantiate the pre-existing condition that caused the heart attack. And that would go a long way toward dispelling the suspicions. Any judge would know that. So what is this gal’s problem?
Very good post. Great points!