The love that really dare not speak its name
(xymphora.blogspot.com) -- by xymphora --
Kagan literally came up out of nowhere, with no academic or administrative record to speak of, to be picked by none other than Larry Summers to be Dean of the Harvard Law School. She's unprecedented as a Supreme Court judge as she has neither:
any judicial experience;
any kind of distinguished academic history (i.e., she can in no way be said to be 'learned in the law');
any experience at practising law.
She's an administrator, probably a good one, either as Dean or Solicitor General, and her experience is in handing jobs to others. She has no more place on the U. S. Supreme Court than any personnel manager at a medium-sized corporation. Her colleagues keep calling her brilliant, but her brilliance, if any, isn't in the law (she seems to be brilliant at arranging to have powerful mentors and cheerleaders).
The truth is difficult to find, but some people are starting to slowly catch on. She's a cog in the Jewish takeover of American power. From the seminal posting by Guy-Uriel Charles:
"Now one might ask, how can one get tenure at not one but two of the nation's top law schools with what would appear to an outsider to be a thin publication record? I don't know the answer to that question. But when you compare Kagan's publication record to that of Harold Koh's, who was Dean at Yale Law School at about the same time Kagan was Dean at Harvard, and whose name has also been floated as a potential SCOTUS nominee (though apparently much less seriously), the difference is striking. Koh has published over 100 articles and has authored or co-authored eight books. Granted, Koh has been in teaching about six years longer than Kagan."
and (the key, albeit misunderstood):
"Granting that we know very little about Kagan, what do we make of the facts that we do know? Here are some data that gives me pause about Kagan. When Elena Kagan was Dean of the Harvard Law School, she hired 29 tenured or tenure-track faculty members. But she did not hire a single black, Latino, or American Indian faculty member. Not one, not even a token. Of the 29 people she hired, all of them with one exception were white. Under Kagan's watch Harvard hired 28 white faculty members and one Asian American."
White? Here's where we get into the love that really dare not speak its name, Jewish supremacism. A letter to Salon by Revocatus Digitus Flatum:
"Why Kagan has been chosen, and will be the next Supreme Court Justice: Jewish favoritism.
"Glenn deleted my post when I said this. Because, gee, there is no such thing. There is no such thing as Jewish favoritism.
"There is WASP favoritism, right? I mean, we are all agreed on that point - it's the historical narrative of this nation, put forth by every college professor this side of Reykjavik.
"But there is no such thing as Jewish favoritism. So we must think of all the different reasons why Kagan will be the next Supreme. That's what were paid to do - to deny the obvious, and bash our heads against the wall to keep people from seeing the obvious. It's hard work, but the reward is great - book deals, public speaking engagements, face-time on TV. Frequent flyer miles."
From a letter to Salon by lysias:
"By the way, I got the impression, from looking at the faculty list of Harvard Law School at http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html, that a lot of the recent hires had Jewish names (even granted that all law schools have a disproportionate number of Jews on the faculty). I wonder if Kagan thinks that is enough consideration for minorities."
From a comment by Tom Watson to a posting by Kevin MacDonald:
"I did see a short list of her “White” hires, and all but, one, were Jews. LOL. I’m not even sure about the one."
'White' covers a lot of sins. We're hypersensitive about discrimination in favor of whites, or reverse discrimination in favor of anybody except Jews. The fact that Kagan's job was to stack Harvard Law School with Jews - and more research needs to be done on the numbers (and yeah, I know she wasn't the only one involved in the decision process, but she certainly was the main one) - is literally invisible. The only way we can see it at all is by misunderstanding what appears to be discrimination against visible minorities...LINK