Entrenched Ferocious Capitalism

The story below is a perfect example of extreme left-wing fanatics supporting America's enemies.

Lawyer Facing Terror Charge Cites Need for Violence


By Michelle Garcia
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A08

A New York lawyer facing charges of supporting terrorism told a federal jury that she viewed violence as essential to dismantling institutions that perpetuate "sexism and racism."

As a federal prosecutor questioned her statements and support for a "people's revolution," Lynne Stewart, 65, testified that her lifelong philosophy included fighting "entrenched ferocious capitalism that is in this country today."

"I believe that entrenched institutions will not be changed except by violence," Stewart said. "I believe in the politics that lead to violence being exerted by people on their own behalf to effectuate change."

Stewart cited the American Revolution and the struggle to end slavery as such examples but emphasized that she did not support terrorism, saying, "I do not believe in civilian deaths or wanton massacres."...

end quote

As you can see, the enemy is "entrenched ferocious capitalism".


With a quick google search, one can also find out that Ms. Stewart was offered a visiting mentorship position at Stanford University in California as "the David W. Mills Public Interest Mentor", but that offer was rescinded after complaints.

...On Nov. 8, Sullivan released a statement saying that she made the decision to revoke Stewart’s title after it had “come to [her] attention that Ms. Stewart has expressed sympathy for and tacit endorsement of the use of directed violence to achieve social change.” In the statement, Sullivan said she had decided it was “not appropriate” to make Stewart a David W. Mills Public Interest Mentor.

Students supportive of Sullivan’s decision have argued that it is unfitting for a law school to confer an official position upon any attorney who has advocated circumventing the rule of law to achieve societal change, or in Stewart’s case, endorsing violence instead of democratic legal processes. Student opposition to Stewart has drawn upon a 1995 New York Times article that quoted her as saying, “I don’t believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.”...

end quote

Of course, many did complain about the decision:

...However, those angered by the decision have claimed that Stewart’s political views are separate from her record as a lawyer and that denying her the right to formally mentor at Stanford is victimizing her for exercising her right to free speech and borders on censorship.

“I don’t agree with her views on political violence — I haven’t met a student who does,” said Shahid Buttar, a third-year law student. “But this is about her right to speak. Her views about violence had nothing to do with her invitation. She was not invited to speak about her views; she was invited to speak about her job.”...

end quote

1st State Pundit's question: if "it is unfitting for a law school to confer an official position upon any attorney who has advocated circumventing the rule of law to achieve societal change, or in Stewart’s case, endorsing violence instead of democratic legal processes", then why would anyone still argue in favor of this woman? What use is an advocate of breaking the law to a law school?

The answer is clear:
Some Stanford students and faculty see Stanford Law School not as a place to teach law, but as a place to rally and produce advocates of extreme left-wing causes.

Anti-American revolutions and the destruction of capitalism - sounds paranoid and McCarthyesque coming from me, but it sounds pretty real coming out of Ms. Stewart's mouth.

Now ask yourself, what do you think this woman would have taught to fresh young minds attending Stanford?