The Center for Security Policy is running an ad against President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court. She will be a disaster for our Constitution, which runs a poor second (if that) to her leftist belief system. She is one of those people who never suffers from cognitive dissonance even as she holds two opposed points of view. A Leftist.
I hadn’t planned to write about this done-deal regarding the vote in the Senate. It’s deeply depressing for those of us who love our country. However, since the ad has gone up, it has served to remind me that it is important to bear witness: we shall at least go on the record to state our belief that Kagan is not going to serve our country any better than Obama has.
The Center for Security Policy says:
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s “recruiters” to promote their legal code–Shariah– which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals.
If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?
My fear is that this woman is a merely the foot in the door of the Supreme Court for the tenets of sharia.
– – – – – – – – –
It will take the determined will of the American people to fight her and her kind as they attempt to erode and erase our heritage.
Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center, mentions Andrew McCarthy’s warnings about Obama’s nominee [except for one reference below, see the rest of McCarthy’s links at his site]:
During her a stint at the Clinton White House, we now know, Ms. Kagan struck the pose of a champion of women’s rights – at least if you weren’t an unborn girl. So fierce was her devotion to the cause of “reproductive freedom” that she subverted science in the service of abortion on demand – specifically, to preserve the partial-birth abortion procedure, which exceeds even stoning in its ghastliness. She then went on to Harvard Law School where, as dean, she became the champion of sharia.
To hear progressives tell it, we can do nice, clean, friendly sharia, just like we do nice, clean, friendly Islam. “Lapidations,” they will tell you, are no different from jihadist suicide bombings: outmoded vestiges of a long-forgotten time. Except they’re not. They are undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture, and they are happening today, with frequency, wherever sharia reigns. That is because the “moderate Islam” progressives like to banter about is a mirage in search of a cogent set of principles. There is no moderate Islam that can compete with the mainstream, sharia Islam. Thus the crimes and punishments, in all their ghoulishness, endure.
The progressives aren’t listening, Mr. McCarthy. Their political views have left them blind and deaf to any ideas that might threaten their deep, abiding faith in diversity. Kumbiyah, and hand me a stone…if others — and they don’t know these people anyway, so who cares? — have to suffer, too bad. Just don’t get interfere with us on our way down the yellow brick road of Good Intentions.
Real courage at Harvard would have called for condemning the university’s profoundly immoral, gluttonous promotion of sharia. While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence.
Rudy Giuliani had the courage Summers lacks. The mayor turned down the Saudi prince, who had offered New York City his millions for the Twin Tower destruction and slaughter. All New York had to do was blame American foreign policy for the barbarian atrocities.
McCarthy rightly calls Summers the anti-Giuliani. Summers took the money and ran with it. All he had to do was create another Harvard program…for the promotion of Sharia finance.
And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia.
Ah, yes, Mecca-by-the-Charles. Is there nothing Summers or Harvard won’t do for money? So far we haven’t seen his or Kagan’s limits, but we can see the potential for the damage that will follow in their wake.
…no, the Kagans tell us, they’re not endorsing all of sharia. Of course they don’t mean to abet the sundry cruelties and the systematic abuse of women, homosexuals, apostates, and non-Muslims. They simply want believing Muslims to be able to participate in our markets without transgressing what they see as sharia’s worthy prohibition against the payment of interest in financial transactions.
Sharia-compliant finance (SCF): get used to it. If the Senate confirms Kagan, partial birth abortion will remain our American shame and SCF will be just another way to undermine our sovereignty. McCarthy teases out its modern day origins, going back to its founding “brainchild”:
I am indebted to the scholar Andrew Bostom for this assessment of SCF from the architect himself, an excerpt from [Abu-Ala] Mawdudi’s paper, “The Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution”:
If anyone thinks it feasible that this economic system can be successfully implemented even if divorced from the complete ideological, moral, and cultural system of Islam, I will humbly request him to get rid of this misunderstanding. This economic system has a deep relationship with the political, judicial, legal, cultural and social system of Islam. And all these are fundamentally based on the moral system of Islam. . . . If you do not accept this creed, this moral system and the whole of this code of life, completely as it is, the economic system of Islam, divorced from its source, cannot be maintained or administered in its purity for even a single day, nor will any appreciable advantage accrue from it if you take it out of its wider context and then seek to apply [it] to your life.
That’s the whole point: sharia is indivisible. You can pull it apart for the sake of analysis, but it is lived from the inside. It is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law. Anyone naïve enough to dismiss this as one more diversity project has utterly failed to get the point:
To pull off the SCF chicanery, financial institutions hire as advisers Islamic clerics who are expert in Muslim jurisprudence – there being, again, no separation between divine edicts and the secular law in Islam. It is those clerics, many of them Islamists, who decide what transactions are permissible. And very often, to purge the taint, prohibited interest payments are diverted to Islamic “charities.” It all sounds wonderful . . . except for what they don’t tell you: The major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that support for violent jihad is a legitimate form of charitable giving.
That’s a real problem for a Muslim wanting to fulfill his obligations of zakat. Do you ever wonder where the Muslim hospitals are, where the charitable foundations exist which feed the hungry and clothe the poor? You won’t find them because zakat is based on funding jihad, not in bettering mankind, or relieving suffering. The point of jihad is to inflict suffering. And when they’ve finished with us, including Ms. Kagan and the rest of the tools of Islam, they’ll start on one another.
Obama nominated this woman to serve on our highest court. Given the conduct of our legislative branch to date, I’m not holding out any hope for valorous, exceptional advice and withholding of consent by our politicians. Sharia? What Sharia? Sounds like a girl’s name to them.
Sadly, this will be a rubber-stamp operation by a me,too legislative body. Let us hope that at least the Republicans will have enough spine to go on the record as being against this travesty.