Elena Kagan, Who Is Jewish, Promotes Shariah?! WTH!?

Islamic Flag of Saudi Arabia HAT TIP, Herb S.  I keep telling people that left wing Jews are NOT for ZION. They are BOLSHEVIKS, that hate America and hate Israel. NO right minded Jew would EVER want to ‘promote’ Shariah, and NO American should want this insanity, yet KAGAN THE PAGAN did, and would enforce this upon us, yes, that is very possible.


Published on TheHill.com on July 20, 2010

Printer-Friendly Version  Kagan promoted Shariah – TheHill.com

Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Clinton White House, Dick was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Obama White House. But no more.

Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: her support for Shariah law while she was dean of Harvard Law School.

Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. Exposed in our books Fleeced and Outrage, these funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity), and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.

I Bet $$ That The WEAK GOP Will Pass Kagan, The COMMUNIST

  First you have socialism, after socialism (which we are already IN) comes Communism. Communism is death, people.  You will be declared an ‘Enemy Of The State/People’  -You will. And the WEAK ASS GOP will pass this enemy to America into the SCOTUS. The issue is not that she is not experienced, the issue is that she hates Americas freedoms and liberty. This is the very reason that my website is so vehement against ‘liberalism’.  It has brought millions of  deaths in my people. MILLIONS. And here we are again, like sheep to the slaughter, and I am not going down without a fight. NEVER AGAIN, and I mean it.

  Socialism, Communism, Nazi-ism, Fascism= it’s all the same. What I am sick over is that my people, the Jewish people would be in on this blood bath, I cannot believe this, it is the truth, and I just cannot believe it.  Because, that IS what will inevitably come to this land. Death, and genocide is the result of oppressive regimes like this. It is.

SEE:  OBAMA THE DESTROYER From Michael Savages Website.

 “My People Perish For Lack Of Knowledge”

-God, in the Tanach.

The Soviet Union made extensive use of the term (Russian language: враг народа, “vrag naroda”), as it fit in well with the idea that the people were in control. The term was used by Vladimir Lenin after coming to power as early as in the decree of 28 November 1917:

“all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court.” [2]

Other similar terms were in use as well:

  • enemy of the labourers (враг трудящихся, “vrag trudyashchikhsya”)
  • enemy of the proletariat (враг пролетариата, “vrag proletariata”)
  • class enemy (классовый враг, “klassovyi vrag”), etc.

KAGAN: “Hate-Speech” Crazy & 1st Ammendment “NEUTRALITY” Nut

The below is from a semi-moderate standpoint. But, for plain English-speaking people like me, she is a BOLSHEVIK MARXIST, OK?

 Now… I don’t know why Media Matters; Burns: “Conservatives Have Nothing” So “They’re Throwing Everything At The Wall” To Attack Kagan Bla Bla Bla are crying their guts out for, they are BOLSHEVIK Marxist-Nazis too.  All of the sudden they are worried about being Kommie-snakes? Please… Hypocrites. The only way you know what someone stands for, is to read their thesis’s. Kagan is an assault on our freedom of speech. She IS a socialist, period: ‘American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies’
–Washington Examiner

communicate shussh “Hate Speech” means NO FREE SPEECH, period.


See a “moderate” synposis:  On then to my own evaluation of the First Amendment articles: I think they’re excellent. I disagree with them in significant ways (this article, for instance, reaches results that differ quite a bit from those suggested by Kagan’s Private Speech, Public Purpose article, see, e.g., PDF pp. 8–9). But I like them a lot. 

The articles attack difficult and important problems (Private Speech, Public Purpose, for instance, tries to come up with a broad theory to explain much of free speech law). They seriously but calmly criticize the arguments on both sides, and give both sides credit where credit is due. For instance, I particularly liked Kagan’s treatment of both the Scalia R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul majority and the Stevens concurrence, in her Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality article. 

The Rest:The Volokh Conspiracy » Elena Kagan as Scholar





On Leave: 2009-2010


Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law



Office: Griswold 200 Phone: (617) 495-4601 Fax: (617) 495-5115

Email: ekagan@law.harvard.edu

Faculty Directory listing 


Articles in a Periodical
Kagan, Elena. “Presidential Administration,” 114 Harvard Law Review 2245 (2001).
Full text:
HEIN (Harvard Users) || HEIN || LEXIS || WESTLAW      

Kagan, Elena & David Barron. “Chevron’s Nondelegation Doctrine,” 2001 Supreme Court Review 201 (2001).
Full text:

Kagan, Elena. “When A Speech Code Is A Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints,” 29 University of California at Davis Law Review 957 (1996).
Full text:

Kagan, Elena. “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” 63 University of Chicago Law Review 413 (1996).
Full text:
HEIN (Harvard Users) || HEIN || LEXIS || WESTLAW      

Kagan, Elena. “Confirmation Messes, Old and New,” 62 University of Chicago Law Review 919 (1995) (book review).
Full text:
HEIN (Harvard Users) || HEIN || LEXIS || WESTLAW      

Kagan, Elena. “For Justice Marshall,” 71 Texas Law Review 1125 (1993).      

Kagan, Elena. “A Libel Story: Sullivan Then and Now,” 18 Law and Social Inquiry 197 (1993) (book review).      

Kagan, Elena. “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” 60 University of Chicago Law Review 873 (1993).      

Kagan, Elena. “The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v St. Paul, Rust v Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion,” 1992 Supreme Court Review 29 (1992).

Elena Kagan: A Face That Could Stop A Clock!

Thumbs DownYuck!


How Dare Elena Kagan Criticize the Three Fifths Compromise?

Excerpt: So the Constitution, as it was originally written, was racist. Let’s just get that out there.

Slavery, yes. It was acknowledged and accepted in the document. Representatives and taxes were apportioned according to population, except “all other Persons”–non-free persons, i.e. slaves–were counted as three-fifths of people. This was a compromise necessary to get the thing ratified, if my memory of high school history class serves. The Constitution didn’t mandate slavery, but it accommodated it, to some extent, by adapting the nascent system of government to slavery’s existence in certain states. It was agnostic to the practice. This is history. Pointing it out should not be controversial. (See the rest of her BS a mile deep above)