The Jesuit Oath Exposed

While on the subject of paganism, false religions and pulling the wool over the unsuspecting eyes of uninformed, ignorant "Christians"...it is imperative to remind the reader that "Protestantism" has been infiltrated by sworn enemies of truth. If your minister teaches anything contrary to scripture, he/she may be purposefully teaching falsehood. We would like to think that errors creep in accidentally, and are few...nonthreatening. The reality is that we as sheep, should keep a weary eye on the shepherd. If error is spotted, point it out! Question your leaders if they stray from the scriptures. Accept nothing contrary to the obvious rendering of the scripture. Please read the remainder of this post knowing that obtaining an ordination from a seminary may only insure that the holder of such "assurance" is properly brain-washed. ONLY TRUST THE WORD OF GOD as your measure of accuracy!

[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216), from which it was subsequently torn out. The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original. Dr. Alberto Rivera, who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below. – A. N.]

When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colours, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers.

Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:

(The Superior speaks:)

My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope. You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means. You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and the judiciaries and councils of state, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death. You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte, and have served as co-adjurer, confessor and priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labours with the blood of the heretic; for "without the shedding of blood no man can be saved". Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

(Text of the Oath:)

I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola, in the pontification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-Regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Churches of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they entrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centres of civilisation of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things, whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the Church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.

(He receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.)

(Superior speaks:)

You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank. In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one crosses his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the centre of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the centre of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges; the other answers Impious. The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

From whither do you come? Answer: The Holy faith.

Whom do you serve? Answer: The Holy Father at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

Who commands you? Answer: The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Who received you? Answer: A venerable man in white hair.

How? Answer: With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred order.

Did you take an oath? Answer: I did, to destroy heretics and their governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, nor sex, nor condition; to be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation or murmuring.

Will you do that? Answer: I will.

How do you travel? Answer: In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

Whither do you travel? Answer: To the four quarters of the globe.

For what purpose? Answer: To obey the orders of my General and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfil the conditions of my oaths.

Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-Regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.

This post is found at ianpaisley.org For the list of books referenced, go to the original post by clicking on the title of this post.

Following Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny or God's Word

By Brannon S. Howse

This is just an excerpt, starting several paragraphs into this terrific article by Brannon Howse. To read the entire article (please do) click on the title of this post.

We appreciate the strong and courageous stands that Glenn has taken but Christians must understand that Glenn is now, by his own choice, promoting something that is not compatible with Biblical Christian doctrines. While Christians can join Glenn in opposing tyranny, socialism, cultural Marxism, and the like; we cannot join him spiritually. We can be co-belligerents on many moral issues with non-Christians but we cannot find common ground theologically, doctrinally, and spiritually. This is not according to me, Brannon Howse, but according to the Word of God. Christians must understand that the Jesus of the cults is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Please remember that I started the website www.keepglennbeck.com to support Glenn when the radicals wanted his advertisers to stop advertising in his program because at the time he was not promoting spirituality but simply providing excellent information about what was happening in the arena of civil government and law. However, Glenn has now moved into an area where we must draw a clear line theologically, doctrinally and spiritually.

I have yet to see anything that would cause me to have a problem with the 8-28 event at the Lincoln Memorial because I have not seen that event described as a "spiritual event" or a "uniting of all faiths" for the purpose of "healing your soul." If that is what it becomes then I will be equally opposed to the 8-28 event. My concern is really focused on the 8/27 event for the reasons I have articulated.

Some misinformed Christians have e-mailed me Mark 9:38-41 to try and convince me that partnering with Glenn Beck for a "unique spiritual event" is acceptable Biblically even if Glenn Beck is not a Christian, but indeed a Mormon by his own admission. Verse 40 says "For he who is not against us is on our side." There is just one big problem; the people emailing me this verse are taking this scripture completely out of context. Mark 9 is not speaking of a non-Christian that is doing something good but it is clearly speaking of a true follower of Jesus Christ that was successful in casting out a demon.

If you do not think it is Biblically acceptable for a Biblically committed Christian to be united in a spiritual event with Oprah Winfrey then why is it not also unacceptable to unite spiritually in the 8/27 event with Glenn Beck or any other religious leaders that do not adhere to Biblical orthodoxy? How much different are the religious beliefs of Oprah and the beliefs of Mormons? Christian author Ed Decker who was a Mormon for 20 years of his adult life and was a member of the Melchizedek priesthood, a Temple Mormon and active in many church positions before becoming a Christian has revealed to me such facts as:

· Mormons believe the cross of Christ is foolishness and thus you will not find a cross in or on top of a Mormon temple. Thus a Mormon could say "Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross'."

· Mormons believe the blood Jesus Christ shed on the cross is not what saves and thus Mormons will not use red wine or red juice for communion but they use water. Thus a Mormon could say "A slain Christ has no meaning."

· Mormons believe that salvation is not found in placing your faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone but in good works. Thus a Mormon could say "My salvation comes from me."

· Mormons believe that God is one of many Gods and that every good Mormon man can become a God himself. This belief is called the law of eternal progression and is best described in this popular Mormon saying, "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." Thus a Mormon could say that "The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."

Do these pastors and Christian leaders not understand that by appearing on stage at this "unique spiritual event" they are sending the message that Biblical Christianity and Mormonism (and any other unbiblical worldview represented) can indeed find spiritual common ground? This is not only a public relations victory for Mormonism but also for universalism.

Sarah Palin: Pants on Fire, Still

This was posted by Sarah Palin on facebook- the liar alluded to, is NOT Sarah Palin- but Barak H. Obama

Posted on: August 7, 2010
No comments yet

A $3.8 trillion tax increase is coming down the pike, folks. America’s tax cuts which can incentivize small businesses to expand and hire more people (thus fulfilling the mission to grow more private sector jobs), or even just to keep our doors open, will expire in four months. That expiration equates to an increase on your tax bill, starting at midnight, December 31.

I’ll keep calling out President Obama and the Democrats until they tell the American people what the plan is to save the incentives – to not allow the mom and pops’ tax cuts to expire. Granted, liberals (including stubborn “fact-checkers” who claim I’m lying about the soon-to-be tax cut expiration) are trying to clobber me for holding them accountable and prodding them toward revealing their intentions (because they’ve had 18 months to publicly propose a plan to stave off the $3.8 trillion tax increase that will soon slam us, but have revealed no plan). If they have a bill to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, let’s see it. Time for them to put up or shut up.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Take the word of the “fact-checkers” at PolitiFact, who, before moving the goal posts in their second dissembling “fact-check” on the Democrats’ tax hikes, wrote in their original “fact-check”:

There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Still, there’s a good bit of consensus on what the tax increases would look like, both if lower rates expired only for high earners and also for all incomes.

As Ed Morrissey noted:

And there’s a big problem with this argument, which is that “consensus” means nothing without passing a bill, and especially not without proposing one first. Thanks to Democrats in 2001 and 2003, those bills cutting the tax rates have hard-and-fast sunset provisions that create an expiration date absent of any other action. We are now less than four months away from that expiration date after seven years of seeing it coming, after more than 3 years of Democratic control of Congress, and after eighteen months of the Obama administration. Democrats don’t even have a proposal on the table yet, and the legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking to take action before the expiration date hits. Without action, we will see a $3.8 trillion tax hike across the entire spectrum of earners.

So much for “consensus” without action. PolitiFact is curiously stating that in his 2011 budget, the President mentioned some “plan” to do something about not raising taxes on all Americans. Um, don’t know about you, but I don’t find this general, vague promise of some “plan” all that reassuring. The Left also “plans” to do something about our out of control deficits and high unemployment, and the President “planned” for his nearly trillion dollar stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. We’ve seen how successful that “plan” worked out. The President’s budget “plan” hasn’t worked out so well either. As the economist Bruce Bartlett explained at the time, the President’s budget – including the tax promise – was never much more than a vague statement of intent. Practically speaking, it was dead on arrival. Even Bartlett couldn’t have known how dead, though, because in the end Congress didn’t even succeed in passing a budget, let alone in taking a decision on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Bottom line: until we see a formal proposal – an actual bill before Congress – then get ready for that $3.8 trillion hit.

(By the way, the Left sure gets wee-wee’d up when they’re called on something like this, eh? And here I am, thousands of miles away from DC out on a commercial fishing boat, working my butt off for my own business, merely asking the Democrat politicos and their liberal friends in the media: “What’s the plan, man?”, and they seem to feel threatened by my question. So, I’ll go back to setting my hooks and watching the halibut take the bait, and when I come back into the boat’s cabin in a few hours, I’ll log back on here to read their reply. I’ll have succeeded if they’re forced to finally reveal to Americans how they plan to increase taxes, and what they intend to do with our money. In the meantime, I’m catching fish.)

- Sarah Palin, in Homer, Alaska

Shariah comes to the Supreme Court

By Online Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Just as the Senate moves to a final vote on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, the Center for Security Policy’s Christine Brim makes the definitive case against her at Big Peace.

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems. To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system ‚Äì Shariah ‚Äì and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court. Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

1. PRO-SHARIAH MISSION: With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement (here on 9/2008, also 6/2009) 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 staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law ‚Äì 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 (inaugural panel audio here).

2. PRO-SHARIAH 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 attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But ‚Äì when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 ‚Äì Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As 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; In 2005, Kagan made a decision not just to accept it, but to implement Talal’s policies at Harvard.

And not just at Harvard. 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.

Let’s review Kagan’s decisions so far: she actively solicits Saudi financing to promote Shariah law in the U.S.; she actively protects Saudi financial backers for terrorism against the U.S., as being immune from claims by 9/11 families.

3. PROMOTING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND SHARIAH 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 Shariah” in the New York Times Magazine, which promoted “Islamists” - the Muslim Brotherhood ‚Äì as a progressive democratic party, and promoted Shariah 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 Shariah 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.”

So let’s review. Kagan made the decision to honor Feldman, author of “big-lie” forms of pro-Shariah 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.

But wait. There’s more.

4. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN CONSTITUTIONS WORLDWIDE: On May 1, 2007, Kagan initiated a lecture series on Shariah Law, named for Abd al-Razzaq al-Sanhuri, a legal scholar who had drafted constitutions throughout the Middle East between the 1930s and 1960s. There are literally dozens of legal reformers throughout the Muslim world that she could have chosen; but she chose al-Sanhuri.

Sanhuri’s entire career was dedicated to making sure that the civil and criminal legal codes throughout the Middle East were Shariah-compliant. He drafted the laws that ensured Shariah law took precedence over secular laws.

As much as any single individual, he was responsible for the legal drafting for the “Constitutionalization” of Shariah in previously secular Muslim-majority nations in the 20th century, in concert with the political pressure for Shariah by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the financial pressure for Shariah by the Saudi Royal Family.

As legal scholar Enid Hill wrote in her biography of al-Sanhuri, “The outlines of the future dialectic are thus able to be detected if al-Sanhuri’s specifications are followed: Islamic legal theory versus Western legal rules, and when the Western rules reflect a different underlying theory they are to be eliminated and new rules put in their place, rules that are reflective of Islamic legal theory.” (h/t Andy Bostom) Or as al-Sanhuri states himself in his book The Arab Civil Code, “The goal towards which I am striving is that there will be an Arab civil code derived primarily from the Islamic Shari’a.”

Kagan presided over four of the al-Sanhuri lectures before her departure to become Obama’s Solicitor General

5. PROMOTING SHARIAH IN THE JUDICIAL COUP IN PAKISTAN
Kagan consistently used her position at Harvard to promote and legitimate the introduction of Shariah provisions into national constitutions, and indeed into Supreme Courts of other nations. In Pakistan, her influence is having dire consequences.

On November 19, 2008, Elena Kagan presented the Harvard Law School Medal of Freedom to Iftikhar Chaudhry, the controversial Chief Justice of Pakistan. Chaudry had been deposed from his post in 2007 by President General Pervez Musharraf in a complex dispute that included the issue of independence of the judiciary. Musharraf later resigned, and on March 16, 2009, the Prime Minister Gilani re-appointed Chaudhry as Chief Justice.

As noted by Department of Defense attorneys from the Clinton and Reagan eras, Kagan’s honoree has mounted a Shariah judicial coup:

“Contrary to the constitution of Pakistan, Chaudhry usurped the right of appointment of vacancies in the court from the elected prime minister and president…In a previous ruling, Chaudhry reaffirmed the right of the court to disqualify members of Parliament, the president and all ministers of the cabinet from serving if they violate “Islamic injunctions,” or do not engage in ‘teaching and practices, obligatory duties prescribed by Islam. “

The U.S. Senate has the evidence it needs to vote NOT to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. A vote for Kagan is a vote to bring Shariah to the highest court of the land.

Elena Kagan is fifty years old. She could easily serve to the age of eighty or longer. Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will begin a thirty-years legal war to protect the Constitution against Shariah.

Please tell your Senators to keep Shariah out of the Supreme Court, and to vote against confirming Kagan. You can find their names and phone numbers here. Call today.

Also see the Center’s web ad on Elena Kagan and Shariah Law below

Text: 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?

Celebrate the American Revolution—Impeach Obama

Reprinted from canadafreepress.com

”Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God”—Tom Jefferson

Essential themes from the original American Revolution are resurfacing during Obama’s short tenure. As always, the People are bigger than any one man, and so it is quite fitting we return to our roots to fight tyranny by rising up against Obama’s imperial presidency, forcefully and legally removing him, just like rejecting Mad King George. Timeless revolutionary issues boil down to Natural Law arguments concerning rights to property, the purpose of government, sovereignty and tyranny.

Let’s examine these themes and ponder how the Founders reacted to them. We no longer have a potentate to revolt against, that much is true. Instead, we have a Prince Barack (Princess?) wanting every democratic organ turned into a one-party system. He’s duty-bound to personally transform our economy from a normally healthy capitalistic one into the permanently sickly socialist kind. Barack wants America humbled militarily and socially, to punish us for our “sins,” even deigning to build-up Islam with NASA, crazily enough! Obama insists we spend and spend until the only logical option left is insolvency.

But is this our fate? Must we just absorb any number of beatings, yet keep rising with a smile on our mangled faces like a perennially abused girlfriend? Instead, let us help Barack recall how we treat despotic kings, insipid leaders and crazed tyrants, by reviewing the history of the bravest, fairest, most just and generous nation that’s ever existed.

I Brief Background to American Revolution

Arguably, the American Revolution resulted from success in grafting the ancient principles of English liberty into the States. The colonies were originally where Europeans, and especially English dissenters, could relocate to start over with small government, cheap land, religious freedom, and self-direction.

The American Revolution was rooted in the attitudes of the first settlers coming to the New World in the 17th-century. Most were embroiled in the English Civil War, carrying ideals of Lord Coke, and English liberties, like the Petition of Rights, promised by Parliament “all the rights, privileges, and immunities of Englishmen.” These were protected by right to trial by jury; governed by Common Law; could not be arbitrarily imprisoned; and weren’t to be taxed without consent.

As time passed various European-American territories came into conflict, especially occurring during the French & Indian War. This pitted four nations against each other. The French were soundly defeated, while the British, Iroquois and Americans all gained, but the States emerged with a trained military.

After the war, King George III decided the Colonies must pay their own way, and started taxing them. Much bitterness ensued as the first foreign levies were laid. The Boston Tea Party was an expression of colonial anti-tax fury helping spark the War of Independence.

II. Themes of Revolution

Overview

Issues prodding Founders to rebel against King George mirror those goading current protesters to reject Obama: Sovereignty; Property, Liberty and Tyranny.

Today we face a government completely opposed to productive elements of society. Our Constitution presupposes capitalism, protecting private property, keeping government small. We can’t giganticize government without abolishing citizen rights to private property, or arbitrarily moving wealth from one group to another—without destroying our ancestral liberties. Our Constitution is our only real bulwark against tyranny.

A. Taxation:

Arguably, the American Revolution was a child of tax revolt. England launched several different levies, merely infuriating colonists enough to take up arms. For brevity, regarding various taxes the British established before the Revolutionary War, here is a link. Thomas Paine observed,

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute. (Rights of Man)

Founders saw tax money as being just another part of a larger group—Property. James Madison, the main author of the US Constitution, wrote a compelling article on the larger notion of Property:

This term (property) in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, whichimpartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (The Papers of James Madison 29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266—68 )

We note a fascinating development of Revolutionary thinking expanding the notion of Property, by such Enlightenment philosophers as John Locke, Adam Smith and David Hume. The Founders believed the defense of private property was a foundation of liberty.

Richard Pipes, perhaps the world’s greatest authority on communism and socialism, claims freedom itself is impossible without a defense of private property. He writes in Property and Freedom,

In medieval Europe, and especially the seventeenth century, when the modern ideas of liberty were born, “property” came to be conceived as “propriety,” the sum total of rights to possession as well as personal rights with which man is endowed by nature and of which he cannot be deprived except by his consent and not even always then (as, for instance, in the denial of the “right” to sell oneself into slavery). The notion of “inalienable rights,” which has played an increasing role in the political thought and practice of the West since the seventeenth century, grows out of the right to property, the most elementary of rights. One of its aspects is the principle that the sovereign rules but does not own and hence must not appropriate the belongings of his subjects or violate their persons—a principle that erected a powerful barrier to political authority and permitted the evolution of the first civil and then political rights.

B. Popular Sovereignty

Rejecting England’s tyranny over Americans encouraged Popular Sovereignty’s debate. Sovereignty was the chief issue battled over between the colonists and England. Preeminent American Revolutionary historian Bernard Bailyn explains this in the Ideological Origins Of The American Revolution,

But of all the intellectual problems the colonists faced, one was absolutely crucial: in the last analysis it was over this issue that the Revolution was fought. On the pivotal question of the nature and location of the ultimate power in the state, American thinkers attempted to depart sharply from one of the most firmly fixed points in eighteenth-century political thought; and though they failed to gain acceptance for their strange and awkward views, they succeeded nevertheless in opening this fundamental issue to critical discussion, preparing the way for a new departure in the organization of power.

Definitions of British sovereignty evolved for decades, morphing to a tyranny of Parliament, according to Bailyn. Ultimately, Americans could not accept the British theory that all sovereignty resided in the English Parliament.

C. Religion:

Religious and civil liberties were joined in American minds and were defended as such, according to Bailyn. Colonial Americans were profoundly disturbed by England’s insistence the Anglican Church be America’s official denomination. The great heroes of disestablishment were Separatist Baptists, keenly aware of their minority status, chaffing at the idea they would pay double—once for the established church and again tithing to their own congregations, while still experience discrimination. Unified protests by various denominations helped block establishment, causing the source of the First Amendment’s prohibition against an official state church:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

This battle over Anglican establishment resembled the medieval Church’s struggle that released so much violent energy in Europe the previous centuries. We cannot today understand the extent colonial life was intertwined into the life of the Protestant churches. It was the work of Madison and Jefferson in Virginia’s constitution to articulate a well-expressed defense of religious freedom of choice.

Other scholars have revealed how the strata of American political theory could not exist but for Jewish and Christian teachings. It’s already been shown in this journal how the US Constitution was based upon the Puritan notion of Covenant, as shown by the work of Donald Lutz; whereas the federal theory of power sharing owes its conception to the ancient Jewish federal government, seen in Daniel Elazar’s many works. And Michael Novak argues in a compelling essay titled “Sacred Honor: Religious Principle In The American Founding” (in The Enduring Principles of the American Founding) that much of American political theory comes from an Old Testament understanding of God.

Even more intriguing is Ellis Sandoz’s description, in his A Government of Laws, Political Theory, Religion and the American Founding, that the entire undertaking of 17th century political writing—such as John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government—is a type of civil theology. The Founders regarded such as a “Divine Science of Politics.” In 1646, John Winthrop recited the Lockean formula that government primarily existed to protect ... “lives, liberties, and estates, etc., according to their due natural rights as freeborn English.” In Locke’s understanding of Property, reiterated by James Madison and all Founders, “Property” properly understood contained one’s Natural Rights, including all species of Freedoms and beliefs. Here we see the inseparable connection between the Founders religious ideas and their theory and defense of civil rights.

III. Natural Rights: Inherent Rights From God Not Man

The Founders drew upon Natural Rights in writing the Declaration and Constitution, believing such were created by God, not government. If not, these rights would be mere privileges, to be canceled on a whim.

The Declaration states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

IV. Obama & Tyranny

According to Sandoz, American Revolutionary preachers typically instructed their flock it was a divine duty to oppose tyrants. An example is the Reverend Samuel West, preaching in Boston on May 29, 1776, who develops this idea at length. He says a leader directing evil government is debased to the level of an animal. He states—in part:

This shows that the end and design of civil government cannot be to deprive men of their liberty or take away their freedom; but, on the contrary, the true design of civil government is to protect men in the enjoyment of liberty.

From hence it follows tyranny and arbitrary power are utterly inconsistent with and subversive…of civil government, and directly contrary to natural law, the true foundation of civil government and all politic law. Consequently, the authority of a tyrant is of itself null and void…

Our obligation to promote the public good extends to the opposing every exertion of arbitrary power injurious to the state…No man can be a good member of the community that is not as zealous to oppose tyranny as he is ready to obey magistracy. A slavish submission to tyranny is a proof of a very sordid and base mind…when rulers become oppressive to the subject and injurious to the state, their authority, their respect, their maintenance, and the duty of submitting to them, must immediately cease; they are then to be considered as the ministers of Satan, and, as such, it becomes our indispensable duty to resist and oppose them.

If we are still under the same Constitution, don’t we yet have a patriotic duty, divine or not, to oppose all tyrants?

V Impeach Obama: Blowup the DC Outhouse

Impeachment details are previously described here: article 1; article 2. But no specific crime need be proved of Obama, if he’s found undermining the Republic. Countless stories detail Barack’s absolutely astounding number of mistakes and imbecilic decisions (see above). But simply ponder—without government defense of private property, we are doomed to drift into socialism, and then lose our liberties. Historically speaking, no other outcome is possible. For this reason alone, Obama must be removed ASAP.

Conclusion

As Americans we don’t put up with tyrants, nor are we afraid of boastful, bullying politicians with wildly destructive agendas. In fact, we were born in dissent, breaking the shackles of tyrant King George III, fighting our way to freedom. We used every peaceful means to protest, but our cries for liberty and justice were ignored. Finally, when we were fired upon at the Boston Massacre, we then took the gloves off. Now, it’s time to roll up the sleeves again and get our hands dirty with the filthiest cabal of politicians ever seen in DC. Many will claim that Barack has such a numerical advantage in Congress, impeachment is impossible. But let’s see what the field looks like after November’s elections.

The US theory of principled dissent against tyrants is not only biblical, but eminently logical to even the staunchest atheist. If we do impeach Obama, what will be the result? Overly—emotional liberals will wring hands and warn of a “coup” and “blood in the streets.” Actually, the impeachment process is meant to avoid bloodshed and allow peaceful removal of corrupt or tyrannical leaders.

Instead of causing major social unrest, impeaching Barack could achieve notably wholesome ends. First, putting all corrupt politicos on notice they don’t own their seats, but serve the People. Second, revitalizing the ignored impeachment process, making possible removal of our typically scum-of-the-earth “leaders.” Third, saving America. For, if we remove Barack now, stop his wild spending, roll back Obamacare, and halt his other leftist machinations, it might be the one thing we have left in the arsenal to preserve our celebrated, but badly wounded, best-ever Republic.

And let us not forget, it was peerless genius and Declaration of Independence drafter Thomas Jefferson who wrote to friend and fellow genius James Madison, drafter of the Constitution —that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” And if Obama can’t take a joke, let’s then recall Patrick Henry’s immortal reply to charges of disloyalty, when he criticized Parliament and King in his first speech in the VA House of Burgess : “If this be treason, make the most of it.”