Bombshell: Jerome Corsi says Justice Antonin Scalia was a pedophile, murdered by 13 y.o. boy

Dr. Jerome Corsi, 71, is an author and columnist for WND (WorldNetDaily) and Human Events, as well as InfoWars‘ Washington, DC bureau chief. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University in 1972.

On February 26, 2018, Right Wing Watch (RWW) posted an interview of Dr. Corsi to YouTube, in which he made the startling claim that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a pedophile, who was killed by a 13-year-old boy in a “bad sex incident”.

Note: Right Wing Watch is a project of People for the American Way — the left-wing advocacy group founded by TV producer Norman Lear in 1980 for the express purpose of challenging the “moral majority” of the Christian right. RWW describes itself as reporting “on the extreme rhetoric and activities of key right-wing figures and organizations by showing their views in their own words.”

In the clip below, Corsi was asked why Justice Scalia’s name is “suddenly popping up” more than two years after his death.

Corsi replied:

“What surfaced in the last week, and again this is another one that is gonna be disturbing for many people, but there’s evidence that surfaced — and I’m not gonna say it’s true — it’s not proven, but evidence surfaced. First of all, QAnon has been saying Scalia was killed, but said from the beginning he was murdered. This has been a theme from QAnon for months.

So the story is the pedophilia ranch, a boy ranch for elite to go on these so-called hunting trips and have sex with young children, with young boys. The story is being circulated and with some, again, evidence that can’t be dismissed out of hand, that has to be investigated — that there was an incident with a 13-year-old boy, the story is. And it will mean that Scalia was involved in pedophilia, and it didn’t go well, and the kid cut his throat and killed him. It was then disposed as a bad sex incident . . . .

Again, we don’t have proof of this. We’re not saying it’s true. We’re not saying this is how it happened. But if you’re investigating, you’ve got to answer certain questions, again, that don’t fit together.”


We are told that on February 13, 2016, Scalia suddenly died in his sleep in his room in Cibolo Creek Ranch, a 1,700-acre ranch and luxury hotel in west Texas, only 15 miles from the US-Mexico border. To this day, Scalia’s death is shrouded in mystery. The things “that don’t fit together” include the following:

See “13 questions to ask about Justice Antonin Scalia’s death“.

Devil masks on dining room wall of Cibolo Creek Ranch

A man named David Shurter, who claims to be a victim of Satanic ritual abuse in the infamous Franklin child-prostitution ring in Omaha, Nebraska in the late 1980s to early 1990s, said he had been sexually abused by Scalia. See “Former Victim Claims Scalia Was a Pedophile“.


89 responses to “Bombshell: Jerome Corsi says Justice Antonin Scalia was a pedophile, murdered by 13 y.o. boy

  1. “Again, we don’t have proof of this. We’re not saying it’s true. We’re not saying this is how it happened. But………” Really!? For God’s sake!

    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

    Liked by 4 people

    • There’s no proof, says this PhD researcher Corsi—meaning that in his opinion the evidence before him is more likely false than true. Saying on the radio that the report is worthy of further investigation at this stage in his investigation, when he admits he believes it to be false, is slanderous. Lincoln, for example, wrote that making an assertion one doesn’t know the truth or falsity of is itself committing a falsehood, regardless whether it turns out to be true. Does this obvious smear job have something to do with Trump’s likely upcoming Supreme Court appointment? For example, is President Trump considering a protege of Scalia who could be tainted with this creepy stuff?

      Liked by 2 people

      • That’s very astute. Why, for the love of God, would someone even discuss such a damning accusation without proof, then “soften” it with “although I don’t have proof”?

        I have heard this before. I don’t know if its true or fantasy. He had a lot of leftist enemies. If someone has “proof” lets see it. Until then, why are they discussing it. He isn’t here to sue them.

        Admittedly the whole thing was flaky. I am also suspicious of “all men organizations” that like to hang out together in remote locations. They have a right to do that, however.

        Future appointments to the Supreme Court would be an excellent reason for poisoning the well in advance.

        Liked by 4 people

  2. It’s so easy t slander the dead isn’t it? Who’s next on the psycho hit list, Jesus?

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I never liked the story. A “good” Catholic being at this ranch, never sat well with me. I am not saying he was murdered, just the place puts him in a bad light.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. My head is spinning from this one! And yet, the story has not been adequately explained, and this is an explanation. So… is it the truth? (we all want to know)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Does it strike you as strange that Corsi would even mention this, given what he himself has said? What would provoke a person to do that unless there is more to the story? “I don’t know, but I’ve been told, but don’t quote me on that, it’s probably not true…., but…..”?

      I don’t think a Catholic, any Catholic, has anymore business with this organization than they do joining the Freemasons. Joe Biden is Catholic (on paper), but I would count my fingers after a handshake.

      Most, if not all, of these “power people” derive their positions through their associations. In this case, I’m sure he wasn’t on the Supreme Court because he was the best judge or lawyer anyone knew.

      I frankly don’t see how anyone of faith could pursue such an office, given the nature of the beast. Having said that, he is certainly not the first example of someone ostensibly “devout” who joined organizations that are suspect.

      If someone presented evidence of this accusation I would not be all that surprised. On the other hand, believing something as awful as this with no proof is sinful. Why doesn’t he pursue an investigation and come back with the results?

      Liked by 3 people

  5. where’s the boy? who hired him? hillary? pleaseeee.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I think Corsi is speculating. Remember he’s been wrong about things before and some of the things in one of his books was so wrong. I do have a hard time with this, but then too remember that Scalia and Ginsburg were good friends, and Ginsburg had written that 12 year old boys should be able to say yes to sex with an adult male. So…we’ll probably never know, but I sure don’t like to even think this.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ditto that.

      However, Corsi did say “there’s evidence that surfaced,” without describing the evidence. I would think that Corsi would exercise more caution in making these outrageous claims because Scalia’s family can sue him for slander.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I read this quite a while ago. It is an easy story to invent. Because I haven’t seen anything even approaching evidence, I haven’t discussed it. Does anyone think for a moment they wouldn’t put it out there if they had it?

        I don’t have any special feelings for Scalia one way or another. If I had a theory on his death and wanted to “break the news” and use my reputation to do it I’d be a lot more careful with my verifiable facts.

        The issues surrounding the death ARE suspicious. That said, it’s a leap from those to sex with kids. Frankly, I have no idea about that. If he’s “convinced”, let’s see what convinced him.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Seems to me that the evidence was destroyed. An answer as to why it was destroyed is what we need, but it is unlikely to be forthcoming. Not to be suspicious in such circumstances is to be a gullible fool.

          As for him being a “good Catholic”, that means very little today since the Church was destroyed by pedophiles and homosexuals.

          As for pedophilia in high places, The Franklin Scandal is a must read.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Concur.

        Why would Corsi say this without citing the evidence? Boggles my mind why he would open himself up to a lawsuit.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dr Eowyn . . . . Just as you have mentioned, Corsi could be sued for slander. Frankly, I think that lawsuit should go forth. It is unconscionable for anyone to make these kinds of “kinda, sorta, accusations” when the man is dead and buried. It is a gross miscarriage of justice to say these kinds of things–without putting the evidence out on the table.

        As far as I am concerned, NO REPUBLICAN should accept ANY invitations to do anything where it is out and away from many watchful eyes. This should be a lesson to all! Do not trust evil people with your life. Most of us who would never, ever think of shedding innocent blood, find it hard to conceive that other’s would have that mindset, but if you look at the Clinton Cartel, you will find a long, long trail of bodies.

        Everyone at the ranch were supposed Demorats, the Sherriff was a Demorat, the judge, without ever seeing the body who declared him dead was a Demorat . . . I’m sorry but the cards stack up so that it seems more likely than not, that Judge Scalia was “taken out,” because they did not like his conservative rulings on the Court.. I find this preposterous to contemplate that a young boy cut Scalia’s throat, and that they could keep that under wraps. I am not any more persuaded to believe this story, without concrete proof, that I am of purchasing ocean front land in Utah.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Scalia and Ginsberg were not just good friends. Scalla had become a student of the Talmud. What more would one want to know about the character of a person after they have become aware that one is a fan of the Talmud? Pray tell, can anyone tell me how a man who was a purported Christian, and Constitutional scholar, have done anything but reject that filthy, rotten book that contains sanctions for pedophilia, racism, and defamation of Christ? and yet Scalia studied it and quoted it.

      While we may never know the exact truth about what went on at that ranch, we know it cannot be good, and I for one do not have one iota of doubt that he was involved in some type of pederasty. As to how he died, that is another thing….and Dr. Eowyn is right- Corsi is really opening himself up. However it also happens when these types of allegations are made- the accused ignored. The powerful choose to ignore these accusations, knowing if they go after the accuser more info will come out. Case in point: Hillary has been accused of rape by Cathy O’Brien.

      As Crosses are coming down on public property across the country, let’s meditate on this one:

      Public Menorahs
      n 1989, Antonin Scalia was part of a majority on the Court that ruled that a menorah had the right to stand on public property.
      The case – County of Allegheny v. ACLU – was brought by prominent US attorney Nathan Lewin, an Orthodox Jew who has defended Jewish rights before the Court – and was an old Harvard Law classmate and sparring partner of Justice Scalia.

      Reading the Talmud

      While Justice Antonin Scalia was known for his strong Catholic faith, he also found time to learn about other legal traditions – including Jewish law. Visiting the University at Buffalo Law School in 2002, he met with Adjunct Law Professor and Rabbi Noson Gurary and learned about what Judaism has to say on some pressing legal issues. Justice Scalia later wrote to Rabbi Gurary, expressing his appreciation of learning about Jewish law. “Knowledge of another legal system helped him to understand [the U.S. legal] system” better,” Gurary said about Scalia’s correspondence.
      Later that year, Scalia was one of only three Supreme Court Justices (along with two Jewish Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) who attended and spoke at inaugural meeting for the National Institute for Judaic Law. That organization – founded by Scalia’s old law school colleague Nathan Lewin and his daughter Alyza – provided regular classes and events to educate people about Jewish legal issues. The kick-off event was another first – a kosher dinner for 200, the first served in the Supreme Court.

      Justice Scalia Cites the Talmud: An Exegesis by Michael Hoffman

      Liked by 2 people

      • There is nothing wrong with knowing more about “other traditions”. I have a good friend who was a Catholic monk and studied in Israel. I have a Talmud in Hebrew that he gave me. That doesn’t make him, or me, a Jew.

        Scalia had a lot of enemies. Whether deserved or not, I have no reason to believe even tale I read about him because someone claims it’s true. He wasn’t “likable”. Neither is Ginsberg.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I hear what are saying as far as research- nothing wrong with that, but there is example above that Scalia considered it when making a ruling, which shows two things: that he considered it a document to be respected, and that he put it on footing with the Constitution, maybe not an equal footing, but a footing never the less. I disagree with both those points. Though the Talmud is not wall to wall filth, and there are some things in it that are lofty and wise, as a Christian I cannot accept it as a ” holy book” that should have any bearing whatsoever in any consideration before US law, when it contains the things it does. Any exegesis should be made solely on the Constitution. Just my opinion.

          Beyond any Talmud arguments, I think one can be judged by the company they keep. The fact that Scalia was such buddies with Ginsberg, who is such a far left wack job that her beliefs and opinions diverge into the realm of the obscene defies logic for me. One can respect another as a human being, and be cordial, but to fraternize with someone whose ideas are demonic is beyond comprehension for this mind.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Well Lana, we may just have to disagree. There was nothing “liberal” about Scalia. In fact, I would probably have trouble with him theologically as a fellow Catholic because he was too paleo-conservative, in my opinion.

            Ginsberg is simply an insane Jew. We have Communism because of people like her, not the other way round. The “legalism” of Judaism would probably appeal to Scalia. It would absolutely turn me off.

            As to religion vs the Constitution, there is nothing more important than a person’s faith, nothing. All actions must flow from it and be in accordance with it. As wonderful as the Constitution is, it is not God.

            Fortunately, I see no conflicts with faith in The Constitution. In truth I have no idea in the world what Scalia’s relationship was to Ginsberg. I think it is easy to write anything a person decides to write about a famous person. It may be true, it may not be.

            All I know about Scalia is “what I read in the papers” so to speak. It is said that he was a member of Opus Dei. That is a VERY conservative (maybe even reactionary) organization. Many political parasites are Dominionists. They frighten me more.

            I agree that the circumstances surrounding Scalia’s life and death are not clear. I do not believe that association means anything other than that. I have many associates that I certainly do not agree with politically or religiously.

            I worked for many years virtually surrounded by people I did not have anything in common with. I didn’t have to have them agree with me to do my job.

            At any rate, I was not overly fond of Scalia, and I certainly can’t stand Ginsberg. Now if we can get Ginsberg interested in little boys………..!

            Liked by 1 person

            • “Well Lana, we may just have to disagree. There was nothing “liberal” about Scalia.”

              We really don’t have to disagree Lophatt because I never said Scalia was liberal, though some of his rulings seem questionable for a supposed conservative. If you go back and re read what I said, I think you will see that ( unless I worded something inappropriately ) I said GINSBERG WAS THE LIBERAL, not Scalia. It is claimed- you are correct that it was a claim, that they were quite good friends going to the opera and such other activities. So based on that general knowledge that seemed to have been affirmed by Scalia when he was alive……. to restate my thoughts….. I cannot wrap my head around how someone who was as conservative as Scalia could in good conscience have been friends ( not acquaintances, not work partners, but friends ) with someone who held to the liberal demonic ideas that Ginsberg held. In addition, I think that one could possibly consider Christian philosophy as a background to make Constitutional rulings because of Christianity’s inherent universal principles, but to use the Talmud as a background theology/ philosophy in concert with the Constitution is an anathema because of it’s perversions, biases, racism and doublespeak. Christianity is universal, the Bible being the inspired word of God, The Talmud is law for Jews written by men inspired by the love of themselves and their own tribe, ( and in my opinion the devil).
              The bottom line for me is I don’t always believe appearances anymore. Scalia was a conservative on the outside, but it doesn’t mean he wasn’t part of the club and just playing his part, and had in whole or in part embraced the Satanic Judaic philosophy that attempts to subvert the world and God. We need look no further than what has gone on in the Church with all the pedophilia to see that rank evil often cloaks itself in respectability and sanctity. But again- just my opinion- not saying anyone has to agree.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Lana . . . . I think back to the scripture where Christ commanded us to “love our enemies.” In that vein I can see why Scalia may have acted friendly to other members of the Supreme Court–although he did not see things their way. If we sit so haughty that we are on our high horse, there is no way we could ever teach or persuade someone to change their attitude on anything. I must admit to many times where I acted in a friendly manner to people I worked with, although I was less than thrilled by their political leanings. Jesus Christ also advised us that “the spirit of contention was not of Him,” which would have me think that perhaps he meant it was better to act in a friendly manner to others–even if they did not see things our way, then just to shun them out rightly.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Auntie Lulu:

                  A Los Angeles Times article of June 22, 2015 refers to Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg as “close” and “BFFs” (best friends forever). She affectionately called him “Nino”: “Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together…. The pair met in the early 1980s as judges on the U.S. appeals court in Washington; Scalia joined the Supreme Court in 1986 and Ginsburg followed in 1993. He may have even played a small role in her appointment.


                  It’s one thing to act “in a friendly manner” toward people of different political beliefs and values, it’s another to be “close friends” with them. I don’t think Jesus asks that of us. Given how diametrically opposed “liberals” are from conservatives — in fundamental values and worldview — I am repulsed by them. While I am civil and maintain a friendly demeanor towards them, I can’t imagine being close or best friends with them. Close friendships are built on important shared values and common interests.


                  • Auntie I was going to answer, but Dr. Eowyn, ( thank you!) said it so much better than I could.
                    I would only add that while the Bible tells us to be kind to others, it also warns us to not become close with people who are unbelievers.

                    2 Corinthians 6:14
                    Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

                    That sums it up for me.Ginsberg, for all her respectability given her by her position is a dark, dark person.

                    Liked by 1 person

            • Lophatt: Opus Dei’s conservatism is open to debate. Rightly or wrongly, some Catholic traditionalists have argued that Opus Dei played a leading role in turning Spain into a modernist secular socialist country – through its emphasis on exalting work at the expense of prayer and contemplation. Ruth Kelly, a member of Opus Dei, was a minister inTony Blair’s utterly disastrous and rabidly anti-Christian government in Britain; on at least one occasion when issues relating to IVF were being voted on in the British parliament Kelly stayed away from the chamber; not exactly an heroic example of fighting the good Catholic fight one would have thought.

              As for Scalia, it always amazes me how Catholics (very much including tradtional Catholics) tolerate or even actively endorse a brazen double standard when it comes to accusations of sexual abuse. Thus when Francis Bergoglio said that those accusing a Chilean bishop of being present when child abuse took place, should present evidence to support their accusations, the sky fell in on him. Raymond Arroyo of the Catholic TV channel EWTN condemned Francis as “litigious” and Robert Royale, another Catholic Neocon, approvingly quoted the Chilean Marxist playwright Ariel Dorfman’s criticism of Francis’s stance on the Chilean bishop. To put this in context, one of Dorfman’s plays was turned into a film by none other than child rapist and fugitive from justice, Roman Polanski. You couldn’t make this stuff up!

              Likewise when the British police said they found accusations of child abuse against former British Prime Minister Ted Heath and other liberal big-wigs credible, the British media en masse hysterically denounced the police for believing the word of “paranoid fantasists”. Yet these same media condemn Francis merely for asking for evidence to substantiate accusations against Catholics.

              I should add that I am anything but a fan of Francis generally, but in this case he is the one upholding the traditional Catholic principle of innocent until proved guilty.

              (Apologies for the lengthy comment)

              Liked by 1 person

              • That’s a fair comment. I don’t agree that “Catholics” are any more likely than anyone else to tolerate sexual abuse. The Church does not endorse it. It does take a pastoral view and that sometimes annoys “law and order” types. The Church is not the police or an arm of law enforcement.

                That said, the Church could and should do a better job in the area of priestly formation, responsiveness to allegations, oversight, etc.. Knowing that most do not agree with me, I think the Church is always the natural target of those who would do Her harm. While it is possible that priests may be more likely to offend, it has not been proven to my satisfaction. We DEFINITELY hear more about priests and other Catholic clergy than we do about our “separated brethren”.

                As to Opus Dei, you may be right. It isn’t my cup of tea either. I have never heard them described as “secular”. That could very well be my ignorance. I have some knowledge of traditionalists and I always assumed Opus Dei to be in that end of the spectrum.

                I do not like what I’m seeing with Francis. He seems for all the world to be hellbent (literally) on turning the Church into some sort of secular self-help organization. It resembles the YMCA more than the Church as I understand it.

                What little I’ve read about Francis has not been good. He is not the first Pope I’ve had issues with. He is already, by far, the most extreme. If you were to ask me today for a short summary I’d say he was someone planted to usher in the NWO’s handmade “religion”.

                I would love to be proven wrong, however. None of this pleases me.

                Liked by 1 person

              • One short (I hope) postscript to my reply to your comment,
                “As for Scalia, it always amazes me how Catholics (very much including tradtional Catholics) tolerate or even actively endorse a brazen double standard when it comes to accusations of sexual abuse.”, what constitutes “tolerance” and/or and “endorsement”?

                Secondly, do you see “Catholics” as a monolithic block? Sin does not depend upon a group’s aversion to it, or to bombastic displays of outrageous indignation. Those tend to make me, at least, suspicious that the demonstrator wants to be perceived as “holy”.

                I absolutely believe that the average Catholic dislikes sex abuse as much as anyone else. It MAY be true (although certainly not certain), that Catholics in general may not make a production number out of their revulsion.

                So, the short version would be “no, Catholics do not have anymore to apologize for than Protestants. Nothing has changed with regard to sin and the Church’s acceptance thereof. Anger, wailing and gnashing of teeth, or maybe worse, supercilious judgement is not an accurate or effective gauge of any group’s general belief. Whether I yell and shout or calmly acknowledge the problem has no greater effect on the sin.”

                Liked by 1 person

                • Thanks for your reply. I probably didn’t make myself very clear in my comments about Catholics’ endorsement of double standards. What I was trying to say was that I think many Catholics – including many right-wing and tradtional Catholics – tend to go along with the media line that alll accused Catholic priests and religious are guilty – even when the accused are no longer around to defend themselves, and even when the evidence is flimsy at best. Yet the same media are quick to defend Ted Heath, Pete Townshend of the British rock group,The Who, Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and many others, even though these guys have all been credibly accused of abuse. Townshend received a police caution for viewing child porn in 2002 – but that didn’t stop Bob Geldof and the organisers of the Live 8 concert at Wembley in 2008 inviting him to perform at it, and it doesn’t stop him regularly appearing on the BBC as an honoured guest. Likwise when the Punk rock svengali Malcolm McClaren died in 2010, the BBC broadcast a lavish tribute programme, never once mentioning that he had been openly involved in producing child porn in the early 198Os. And then there’s Alan Ginsburg’s and William Burroughs’ open membership of the paedophile National Association of Man Boy Love. I could go on and on…

                  Most Catholics seem to think it’s bad form to bring any of this up – but surely the hypocrisy of the media needs to be exposed – if only to deprive them of the specious moral authority they have gleaned from attacking the Church over this issue?

                  By the way I completely agree with you about the sole focus on Catholic crimes. To their great credit several leading Irish Protestants (especially the journalist Victoria White) have repeatedly lamented how the media completely ignore clerical child abuse in Protestant denominations.

                  Liked by 2 people

        • Scalia was Catholic. God gives us instincts to warn us about danger. If I were at Cibolo Creek Ranch and saw these devil images, I would run, not walk, out of the place and never come back.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Good point! I can assure you that you would never find me at some exclusive, secretive encampment for men either, “as a Catholic”. So, like I’ve said, I don’t know Scalia, but I find that …….strange.

            We know that we cannot rely on “media” for truthful information. We also know why that is.

            Anyone who violates their faith to participate in Satanic activities is certainly in mortal sin. For someone who makes a rather big deal of his Catholic conservatism that is hard to reconcile.

            Personally, I think most (if not ALL) of these political parasites are Satanists. They can call themselves “Jews” or “Catholics” or “Shiite Baptists”, I know them by their actions.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Scalia the Catholic praising Talmudic Law, presumably only for its development of legal concepts regarding evidence, witnesses, and legal presumptions—but all this was developed in equal depth in our Western civilization in late antiquity in the Romans’ Corpus of Civil Law, and without the homicidally anti-Christian prejudice and hatred oozing from the Talmud. The Talmud was finalized in the 5th century, and while of historical interest in the development of legal reasoning, why would Scalia refer back to the ancient Talmud when Medieval Christian legal scholars had left it in the dust?

            Thinking of Lana’s comments and the replies, Christopher Ferrara excoriates Scalia for his originalism based on Locke’s compact in which the will of the sovereign people trumps the religious truths of Christianity, yet Scalia felt comfortable basing his opinions on the Talmud? I don’t know enough to do more than add my puzzlement at what made Scalia tick. The outrageous pederasty accusation, however, requires the testimony of more than one witness, which is one precept whose development Scalia may have been studying in the Talmud as one ancient source of that rule.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Well, our laws (at least in theory) are based on English Common Law, not Roman Law. Indeed one of the profound problems with the idea of “globalization”, is that while it may appear on the surface that Western States subscribe to the same notion of law, they don’t.

              Why is this important? We believe that our laws are “God-given”. Roman law teaches that laws are “permissions” granted by The State. I think it obvious why that’s an important distinction.

              States, as a rule, have no problem giving permission. They have problems being held to a higher standard than themselves. English Common Law is vastly superior, in my opinion, and deserves to be safeguarded.

              The “new” vision for the world most certainly includes Roman Law (or some derivative notion). I did not intend to debate the internal nature of Scalia. I don’t know him, have never studied him at any length, and frankly was not that interested in him while he was among the living.

              I suppose in a very simplistic way, I tend to link “Traditionalist” thinking with “fundamentalism”. I find fundamentalism always flawed. It is an over reliance on the belief that everything is always reducible to some formula. Hence, Talmudic pilpullism would be a good fit for Scalia (or so it seems).

              Most people who have this tendency are absolutists. I have noted this tendency in some of his writings. Worse, he gives absolutely no credence to opposing view. His opinions, therefore, are always “correct” and his opposition is simply “wrong”.

              I find this a very unnerving characteristic and one that never leads to enlightenment. It is not self-correcting, either.


          • Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but that middle sculpture- I see Pan/Baphomet in the middle, sacrificing the little children below him to death (right) and the devil (left).
            And there is a strange out of place hole underneath the middle girl’s dress, between her legs. Very creepy stuff.

            Liked by 3 people

      • I’ll just be blunt-the TALMUD is the most hateful, racist, anti-Christian and anti-human set of true hate teachings on the planet.

        These insane and blasphemous teachings were followed by the Pharisees and Sadducees in Biblucal times and in our day they drive murderous Zionist supremacism and Cultural Marxist destruction of one Christian nations.

        Don’t take my word for it

        Throughout his later career, Scalia appeared to draw closer to Talmudic practitioners and their ilk.

        Just the same, Corsi is completely irresponsible for making such an accusation without presenting proof.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I agree. It is totally vile and was written in response to Christianity. It’s “prime directive” is to destroy Christianity. I have a couple of copies of it myself. I would not have believed that just on someone’s statement.

          Beyond that, the Torah and Talmud both are component parts of a quasi-religious legal system. The very concept of “faith” and “morals” derived from religious teaching are so different between Christianity and Judaism as to be incomparable.

          They are NOT the same things. They ARE NOT corollaries of each other. If Scalia believe that they are, he was a very stupid man. Christianity is a total system. It encompasses everything a person needs to form and maintain an informed conscience.

          Judaism is entirely legalistic. Practitioners are NOT to form their own opinions based on morals or a conscience. They are to go to authorities for rulings. The rulings are often tortuous and legalistic.

          While it is fashionable for some to equate “The Big Three” as chips off the same block, they are not. If Scalia believed that there was anything to be learned from the Talmud he obviously did not understand his faith.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Ohhh boy, ????

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Almost the proverbial cart before the horse! A large amount of money loss would make you hesitant to go that route with out concrete evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. been a pedophile doesnt ave anything to do w politics,religion,economy,science,whealty system,sport,aso,aso,u just pedophile…which means perverse,sick bastard…


  10. I had respect for Jerome but that’s fading if he’s going to propagate rumours with no proof or substantiation. Yes everyone should know the truth, and to me, it’s no surprise that any prominent person, would get mixed up in depravity because as YHWH told Jeremiah, “the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things” and then He went on to tell the prophet that the only solution was for Him to give us a new heart, – which is accomplished by us applying John 3:16.17 to our lives. He’s not going to forcibly change our hearts thus He makes the possibility available and each of us has to make a choice.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. This rumor first came out right after his death. Why is Corsi presenting it like ” new news?” I really hate conspiratards who simply parrot old stuff. ( love you guys though because you always add new hard research to your material!)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Although I was tuned in to the latest developments “right after his death,” I didn’t see/hear rumors of Scalia being a pederast, so what Corsi said is new and shocking to me.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Me too. I had heard rumors about a young boy killing him. They didn’t offer any proof at the time so I just sort of filed it away. This group is a European based group and all I know about them is what I’ve seen on the internet. The land is owned by another political parasite.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Remember this email from John Podesta ..”Didn’t think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard”.

    Liked by 5 people

  13. I don’t think Corsi would have put this information out publicly if his source(s) were not reliable. He was very adamant when stating that the evidence that surfaced wasn’t proven. He knows the importance of covering those bases. Personally, I believe Scalia was murdered under unsavory circumstances, hence the hasty and unorthodox methods to quickly embalm him and his family not requesting an autopsy. His family KNEW they had to cooperate with the cover-up of what really happened OR? Satanism and pedophilia is rampant at the highest levels of government throughout the world as we know. I’m not saying Scalia was a Satanist, but I believe he had been participating in activities with his secret organization that were against God and his Holy word.

    Liked by 4 people

    • OK. Do you have any idea why he would do that? Is he hoping to stir someone else to supply proof? If he has proof sufficient for him to go to the trouble to publish something about it, why doesn’t he supply it?

      I’m not arguing whether it happened or not. I haven’t seen anything yet that confirms anybody’s suspicions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I do know people like Dr. Corsi, Roger Stone, Alex Jones, Dr. Pieczenik and others receive confidential information from government insiders whom they never reveal. Sometimes, they will let us know they are privy to specific information, but have been asked not to put it out yet. Sometimes, they are allowed to hint at a few tidbits to give the public a heads up that there will be more information forthcoming at a later date when the full details may be discussed. Was this what Dr. Corsi was doing regarding Scalia? Maybe. There are plenty of people at high levels who know the truth and don’t want we commoners to find it out. I’m sure Scalia’s family doesn’t want the truth to be revealed either. Scalia, a high profile conservative judge of the Supreme Court who comes from a large Catholic family and has a son who is a priest, is embalmed in less than 24 hours after he died because his family didn’t request an autopsy. Yea, right. The handling of his body was neither routine nor orthodox. Things like this only happen when something really, really bad happens and it has to be covered up, because in this case, it would be scandalous not only for his family, but also for the Supreme Court and the rest of the tentacles leading to the evil that pervades our government.

        Liked by 4 people

  14. Oy vey!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Left/libtards would’ve been gloating non-stop for months if a big-name conservative literally got caught dead like this. (Podesta and the Comet Ping Ping crowd would be projecting harder than anything… )

    Liked by 3 people

    • Good point. Maybe its “deflection”. I don’t belong to either political party so I don’t even think like that. The fact is that they ARE a bunch of perverts. One pervert pointing at another pervert does not assuage guilt.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Anonymous . . . . I absolutely agree with that. There would be no end to their spreading that news across the entire world! Which makes me doubt that he was involved in that kind of unsavory behavior. Good grief! The man is dead, and cannot defend himself. It is up to decent people to shun these rumors . . . unless, proof positive is offered up!

      The Lord was very specific about the placement of those who spread rumors . . . he said those beings WILL NOT SEE HIS FACE! I think this is enough to make anyone who is concerned about their future placement in a mansion on high, to turn away from these rumors–unless the person spouting them is willing is put up proof.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Putting this out in this manner has the feel of being given a task to me. If it were just to somehow affect the selection for his replacement I suppose one could speculate that they want to “get in front” of whoever Trump nominates for the next vacancy.

    As many here have stated, we have at least noticed this over time. It is unlikely someone is just going to spring this for no reason at all. It certainly follows that whoever provides these theories tells us what provoked them to do this now.

    The wording is highly suspect. In other words, if that’s how he feels about it, why say it at all?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I’m not buying any of it without far more evidence coming out.

    It’s always easy to accuse the dead when they are not able to defend themselves.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Could someone explain who or what QAnon is? It keeps popping up on Twitter and other places.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. ManCavePatriot

    The St. Hubertus Society is an old European secret society with close ties to Bohemian Grove in California. You can find their symbol on a bottle of Jaegermeister. Hours before Scalia embarked on this hunting trip, he was summoned to the WH to speak directly with Obama. I don’t know if this has any bearing but I do know that his demise left the Court in a virtual stalemate. Look at SC rulings after his death to see who might have benefitted. Or, his death might have been a ‘ritual sacrifice’ by this well-connected secret society with no political implications at all. Somebody with power whisked his dead body into the ground before investigators could do any post-mortem studies.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. I have heard this story since he died-there is no evidence of this, I would hate to have my name dragged through the dirt on this whimsical information

    Liked by 2 people

  21. In spite of all the reasons our radar went up with the isolated location, upcoming cases coming up, no autopsy, etc. etc. was the reaction and lack of action from the family and how quickly it was silenced. If it had been a death under normal circumstances. I feel it would have been handled entirely different.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I read this not from Q, but an anon who posted on the research thread. It was a shock, but he gave more info than is on this site. PLEASE research and update the part about the US. Marshals.

    U.S marshals are tasked with protecting members of the Judicial branch. It took 2 hours to get a hold of the “right people” after Scalia was discovered on Rent Boy Ranch by an unnamed aide/individual. Then it was FOUR hours later that the FBI and the marshals actually arrived, and even then they seemed confused about who was actually dead!

    There is also a statement from the marshal claiming “let’s hope this whole thing doesn’t grow feet” or somesuch. I will try to find the post. That is very hard on 8chan for me. But it is worth smarter minds to dig into and add.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Can’t find the post. It’s not in the latest thread. Frankly I don’t understand how 8chan works, and I’ve been visiting only for a few weeks. Took me YEARS to figure out the basic mechanics of my first online forum, to my shame.

    So, there is THIS archive of Qanon’s posts.

    For anyone wishing to dive into decoding his stuff. Some people have, and it starts to map an interesting and plausible game plan for Trump. Such as the idea of a Pyramid Prosecution. True? False? Research! Pray! As Q would say…

    Also, next week will have more “BOOMs”. Whatever those were supposed to mean when Q mentioned them last week. Could be this is one of them? I know one was an explosion at CERN, known in Revelation as the door to the abyss itself, I am 50% convinced!

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Clicked on a bunch of FOTM links related to this story and found one about the Family Guy show predicting things.
    There is a Family Guy episode that depicts a clear parody of Steven Spielberg bending the asian kid from the Goonies over and simulating sex.
    This of course makes me think again of Heather O’Rourke and all the other rumours of this “permanent A+ director.” (
    As vile as he seems, I think Seth MacFarlane is privy to insider gossip within Hollywood, and hides little truth Easter eggs in his work.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Philip McLaughlin

    The Franklin Scandal was swept under the rug. This does not surprise me. Like Pizzagate the press, politicians and peolple in the courts cover for the perpetraitors. Ephesians 5:11&12

    Liked by 2 people

  26. I’ve read all the comments and ticked the ones I liked; this is a very complex subject that needs an enormous amount of sunlight to make it understandable.

    For the record, here are two long essays from an independent investigative journalist, Yoichi Shimatsu, whom I believe is both RC and may still be a California-registered Democrat [if that is important]. Yet he is as you will read very much a Scalia supporter, and for all the right reasons, IMO, of course.

    The article I most wanted to post was not available, and I’m too tired at 2:55 AM to put anymore time into this, albeit deserves that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Catholic and a registered Democrat? — which means he endorses the Demonrat Party’s pro-abort anti-God platform. The 2012 Democratic National Convention 3 times voted to exclude God from any mention in the party platform. That’s really all I need to know about Shimatsu.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I replied two days ago to this query, but it was lost when I switched between sources, so I’ll try again. I’ll be as brief as possible at 12:55 Friday morning!

        At this url,, the long-time investigative reporter Yoichi Shimatsu mounted a strong support of Justice Scalia, when he wrote “Justice Scalia foresaw the real danger of the nation’s highest court becoming a tool for a cynical and undemocratic Executive branch that repeatedly bypasses Congress, state legislatures and the electorate. In that, Scalia was entirely in accord with the drafters of the Constitution.

        “Tragically, a stubborn defense of the Constitution was his death warrant. In the annals of authoritarian repression, the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia will rank as an act of villainy as heinous as the murder of Saint Thomas More. May he rest in peace knowing that others will take up his cause.”

        From what appears to be a recent photo, I think Yoichi Shimatsu would be nearly my age, say 70 anyhow; he long ago left his youthful misplaced idealism and temporary involvement w/the CA branch of the Democratic Prty in the dust. His writing is very incisive and contains immense detailed information, much of it revealing the most private aspects of politicos at the highest levels, and always in unsavoury contexts. Pointedly, the accused never attempt to refute him. Think on that.

        I’m surprised he’s still alive, BUT he does ceaselessly relocate as he searches out material for his exposure of those who make political swamps & murderous sex-capades worldwide. He especially loathes child predators and sexual deviants, see his writing on the Podestas, et al.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. This “bombshell” has been suspected for well over two years.

    According to a first-hand witness, USA Chief Justice Scalia was a child rapist:

    US Supreme Court Justice Scalia Had Secret Texas Meeting With Obama Just Hours Before His Death:

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Can’t really say this is surprising, considering secret societies and pedophilia/homosexuality or other deviant practices tend to run together, it wouldn’t surprise me if these allegations were true. Add in his study of the babylonian talmud, itself a vile text, and a secret meeting with obomber, and it sounds to me like scalia was just another devil worshiper shill, whether he claimed to be catholic or not.

    Does anyone here have any info on the so-called order of hubertus, that might be relevant?

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Does anyone here have any info on the so-called order of hubertus, that might be relevant?”

      I haven’t researched it. This is what Wikipedia says:

      (1) The International Order of Saint Hubertus is a worldwide organization and knightly order of hunters and wildlife conservationists that promotes traditional hunting ethics and practices. Saint Hubertus, the patron saint of hunters and fishermen.
      (2) In 1966, the United States chapter was launched at the Bohemian Club in San Francisco. That alone makes it suspicious.


      • That cinches it, I’d say, Dr. Eowyn, the bohemian club is the one that runs bohemian grove, so its a safe bet to say that the bohemian grove runs the U.S. chapter, and taking into account what Nixon said of bohemina grove, (and also what has been reported about child slavery sex abuse and sacrifice etc.) suffice it to say there is plenty of grounds to consider the order of hubertus suspect, or even a proxy/front for the bohemian grove.

        Liked by 1 person

  29. Joseph E Fasciani

    Amen, Seumas, there’s plenty of sin & perfition to go around, we don’t have to look for a central organisation or leader. These monsters have been with humankind in one form or another forever: they are what Satan harvests as an eternal crop of fools. Enjoy your sickness while you can, perverts, your time is ALWAYS closer than you can imagine!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s