Supreme Court Justice–Elena Kagan–is Pro Sharia Law!

Print PDF

By Kevin A. Lehmann:

Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda—Think Again!The “Appointed One,” in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!

Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple. When you have a clueless, apathetic and disengaged American populace, coupled with a leftist liberal media that’s already in the tank for the “Messharia,” you take the fast track to confirmation and worry about the repercussions later. After all, it’s a lot easier to select than it is to eject a political appointee.

Elena Kagan’s views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It’s unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder? After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court’s docket had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan’s advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?

Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy summarized Kagans’ 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School in the following five points. They tell the story of Elena Kagans’ “deep appreciation” of Sharia law.

1. PRO-SHARIA MISSION:
With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan’s direction, her chief of staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Sharia law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.

2. PRO-SHARIA MONEY:
When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the Middle East were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Guiliani stated, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional law. As presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money. But in 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

Not only there, but as reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

So Kagan actively solicited Saudi financing to promote Sharia law in the U.S., and she actively protected Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIA CONSTITUTIONS:
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Sharia” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” – the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Sharia as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law by honoring him with the endowed “Bemis Chair” in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states,

“Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”

In summary, Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Sharia propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.” Kagan’s financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East (specifically in Israel and Palestine) were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.

It gets better . . .

Quote:

Hi Peter, wasn't sure whether to post this in this thread or your HSIG thread. As you know, Judi McLeod of the CFP writes excellent articles and this one is as good as any of her's I've read.

Obama and Polish Death Camps

The Courage of the Poles Transcends Obama ‘Misspeaks’

- Judi McLeod Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Leave it to the courageous, plucky Poles.

While the rest of the world, including mighty Britain, (returned Churchill bust) sucked up the insults from Obama, grousing to themselves, but not standing up to him, Poland has come right out to demand a sincere apology from knockoff President Barack Obama.

“Poland’s prime minister said Wednesday that remarks by President Barack Obama erroneously identifying a Nazi death camp as Polish had hurt all Poles and he expected more from the US than “regret”. (AFP, May 30, 2012))

“I am convinced that our American friends can today allow themselves a stronger reaction than a simple expression of regret from the White House spokesman—a reaction more inclined to eliminate once and for all these kinds of errors, Donald Tusk told reporters in Warsaw.

“Obama on Tuesday mistakenly called a Nazi facility used to process Jews for execution as a “Polish death camp.” The White House later said the president “misspoke” and expressed “regret”.

But this is not just another Obama ‘misspeak’ like his referral twice in one week to his two non-existent (as far as we know) sons.

This is the outrage of prescribing to the Poles, ownership of the horror of a Nazi camp that processed human beings as slabs of meat in calling it a “Polish” death camp.

Poles have a proven track record in exchanging their collective ‘regret’ for daring deeds inspired by the raw kind of courage that made history.

During World War II, throughout the German occupation of Poland, countless Poles risked their own lives—and the lives of their loved ones—to rescue Jews from the Nazis. Indeed grouped by nationality, Poles represent the biggest number of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. To date, 6,266 Poles have been awarded the title of Righteous among the Nations by the State of Israel—more than any other nation.

And if young people world wide are no longer taught the stories of the singular courage of the Poles, you don’t have to go back 70 odd years to World War 11.

You only have to go back to the Easter before last, to April 10, 2010, when a Tupolev Tu-154-M aircraft of the Polish Air Force crashed near the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all 96 people on board, including Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife; former president Ryszard Kaczorowski; the chief of the Polish General Staff, and other senior Polish military officers; the president of the National Bank of Poland; Poland’s deputy foreign minister; Polish government officials; 15 members of the Polish parliament; senior members of the Polish clergy, and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre. They were en route from Warsaw to attend an event marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet union-inspired massacre.

In other words almost the entire Polish administration.

What did Obama done regarding Poland six months earlier? “Sad to remember today that the last time Poland was in the news was on September 17, 2009—the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland when Obama abandoned Poland’s missile defence system in Europe.”

What did Poland do after the Smolensk air crash? Poles bore a tragedy of an almost unimaginable scale, dried their tears and went on to ensure the security and economy of their country.

Unlike Obama and his insufferable socialism-seeking czars, the Poles have made the world a better place.

In the fight against the evil of Communism, it was Polish-born Pope John Paul II whom the Kremlin recognized as Public Enemy Number 1.

But then again, we all know how Obama and his shadow cabinet feel about Catholics.

Quote:
Hey Peter and friends,

The Kagen Justice is undermining our constitution.

Supreme Court Justice–Elena Kagan–is Pro Sharia Law!

By lburt on February 9, 2012 in Sharia Free USA

Print PDF

By Kevin A. Lehmann:

Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda—Think Again!The “Appointed One,” in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!

Why is it always after the fact, after the elections and after critical appointments that the real vetting of candidates finally takes place? Simple. When you have a clueless, apathetic and disengaged American populace, coupled with a leftist liberal media that’s already in the tank for the “Messharia,” you take the fast track to confirmation and worry about the repercussions later. After all, it’s a lot easier to select than it is to eject a political appointee.

Elena Kagan’s views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It’s unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder? After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court’s docket had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan’s advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?

Christine Brim of the Center for Security Policy summarized Kagans’ 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School in the following five points. They tell the story of Elena Kagans’ “deep appreciation” of Sharia law.

1. PRO-SHARIA MISSION:
With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean.

Under Kagan’s direction, her chief of staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Sharia law – fulfilling her mission “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law.” In 2003, the year Kagan became Harvard Law School Dean, Islamic Legal Studies Program Founding Director Frank Vogel and Associate Director Peri Bearman founded the Massachusetts-based International Society for Islamic Legal Studies. In 2007, Bearman and Vogel founded the Islamic Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools.

2. PRO-SHARIA MONEY:
When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the Middle East were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Guiliani stated, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Sharia law and U.S. Constitutional law. As presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

In 2001 Guiliani made a decision not to accept Talal’s blood money. But in 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

Not only there, but as reported earlier this year, “Kagan is the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled against the 9/11 families” in a suit filed by thousands of 9/11 family members that traced funding for the 19 hijackers to certain Saudi royals, along with banks, corporations and Islamic charities. Kagan, as Obama’s Solicitor General, said in her brief “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” and that the families’ claims that the Saudis helped to finance the plots fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

So Kagan actively solicited Saudi financing to promote Sharia law in the U.S., and she actively protected Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIA CONSTITUTIONS:
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, architect of Iraq’s Constitution requiring Shariah, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Sharia” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” – the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Sharia as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” The article was adapted from his book The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, which was published in late March, 2008.

On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia Law by honoring him with the endowed “Bemis Chair” in International Law. Feldman’s speech on receiving the award was revealing: he advocated for an international, “outward interpretation” of the Constitution that could “require the U.S. to confer rights on citizens of other nations,” and allow for an “experimental Constitution.”

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist worldwide political organization that Feldman and Kagan support? Their motto is as revealing as Feldman’s speech:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Given that slogan, you could well ask if Feldman really meant the Muslim Brotherhood when he wrote about “Islamists” in the book Kagan so admired that she gave him an endowed chair. And he anticipated that question; in the second footnote in his book he states,

“Throughout this book, when I refer to Islamists or Islamism, I have in mind mainstream Sunni Muslim activists loosely aligned with the ideology of the transnational Muslim Brotherhood (MB)…the Brotherhood broadly embraces electoral politics, but without eschewing the use of violence in some circumstances, notably against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.”

In summary, Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Sharia propaganda, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, with an endowed chair. Feldman states flatly that the Muslim Brotherhood, whom he admires, does not “eschew the use of violence against those whom it defines as invaders in Iraq and Palestine.” Kagan’s financial backer, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, insisted that the U.S. policies in the Middle East (specifically in Israel and Palestine) were a cause of the 9/11 attacks. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, the prince did not “eschew the use of violence” against the U.S. And when 9/11 families sued the Saudi royals who funded the September 11, 2001 “use of violence” against the U.S., Kagan used her power as Solicitor General to protect the group that had been her financial backers at Harvard.

It gets better . . .

Quote:

Florida Voter Purge Will Continue, Defying Federal Warning

Posted: 06/02/2012 9:23 am Updated: 06/03/2012 10:13 am

Florida will defy a federal warning to stop purging people the state suspects aren't U.S. citizens from voter registration rolls.

Despite a Justice Department letter, objections from county elections officials and evidence that a disproportionate number are voters of color, Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner's office planned to continue scrubbing the election rolls, a spokesman said Friday. Gov. Rick Scott (R) ordered the search for potentially ineligible voters.

MORE ........