Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In
Townhall.com ^ | March 27, 2013 | Ken Blackwell

Posted on 03/27/2013 5:41:38 PM PDT by Kaslin

Editor's Note: This column was coauthored by Bob Morrison.

President Obama's choice to be Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was approved by the Senate on a vote of 63-34, with thirteen Republicans voting to confirm him. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) created quite a stir with his 13-hour filibuster against the Brennan nomination. Not until he received written assurances from Attorney General Eric Holder that U.S. citizens would not be targeted for killing by drones on U.S. soil would the doughty Kentuckian stand down. Good for him.

John Brennan then proceeded to take the Oath of Office, as administered by Vice President Joe Biden. Director Brennan then did something no other officer has done, something that occasioned its own measure of controversy. Brennan was sworn in on an original copy of the Constitution. It was a very august occasion, to be sure, but it was also a mysterious one.

For the man who will be America's spymaster, it was an odd move for him to stir up trouble. Our top spy's action was, well, "spooky."

Civil libertarians left and right were quick to point out that the 1787 Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Critics were right to be vigilant, especially when our spymaster has been so intimately associated with choosing targets for drone attacks. The Fifth Amendment says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That guarantee should certainly apply to Americans here at home. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be underscored.

But there was little notice of the fact that the First Amendment provides for No Establishment of Religion. This was conspicuously not a part of the Constitution that Brennan chose to swear to uphold.

The Constitution of 1787 did not afford that guarantee, but it did give all Americans protection from religious tests for office. Thus, even without a Bill of Rights, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides that: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

As a result, Brennan's opponents on Capitol Hill scrupulously avoided questioning him about his religion. That was as it should be. We have consistently opposed such religious tests when applied to men and women of our faith.

Here's something else very spooky about the Brennan Oath: How can you take an oath on the Constitution to defend the Constitution? Normally, one takes an oath with his hand on a Bible, or a Koran, on some other Scripture one holds sacred. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution by putting your hand on the Constitution is a skyhook. It is supported by nothing else. It neatly avoids the central question: Is this a valid oath? Can we rely on a person who creates such a stir by the simple act of taking an oath of office?

John Brennan speaks eloquently of "the Majesty of the Hajj." This is the pilgrimage taken by devout Muslims to Mecca. It is a pilgrimage in which no non-Muslim is allowed to take part.

Paging Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). During a series of judicial confirmation hearings nearly a decade ago, Schumer pursued Catholic and Evangelical nominees of President Bush. He wasn't subjecting them to a religious test forbidden by the Constitution, he averred. He was simply probing the nominees' "deeply held personal convictions" which he said might disqualify them from sitting as federal judges.

Where was this constitutional watchdog during the Brennan hearings? The watchdog didn't bark. If any Catholic nominee had spoken of the majesty of a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, where millions of Catholics believe the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared, if any Evangelical nominee had spoken of his feeling of spiritual renewal from attending the Washington, D.C. "Stand in the Gap" revival of Promise Keepers in 1997, we might have expected Sen. Schumer to be grilling those candidates under oath about "deeply held personal convictions."

Not this time. Schumer joined other normally alert liberals in confirming Brennan. No wonder Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor of terrorists, took alarm at the Brennan choice:

Making John Brennan the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the most monumental mismatch of man and mission that I can imagine. The point of having our intelligence agencies is to make sure that we have a coherent, accurate idea of the threats that confront the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Brennan’s career, and certainly the signature that he has put on the national security component of the Obama administration has been to blind the United States to the threats against us.

McCarthy has written Willful Blindness, The Grand Jihad, and Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy to alert Americans to the dangers we face.

What binding force can this Brennan oath have, anyway? Although millions of us would agree with James Madison and George Washington that Providence guided our drafting and peaceful adoption of the Constitution, few of us would contend that the document itself--whether the 1787 original version, or the 1791 version with the Bill of Rights included--is Holy Writ.

George Washington warned us about the loss of faith that can undermine a republic: "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

George Washington knew something about oaths. He took the first presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" with his hand firmly placed on the Bible. In front of a cloud of witnesses in New York City, he kissed the Bible.

This strange episode gives us no sense of security. Can we trust our property, our reputation, our lives to such a man and such a spooky oath?


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: 1787; 201303; bhocia; bhogwot; billofrights; brennan; cia; ciadirector; corruption; dci; deones; drones; faith; foreignaffairs; hajj; infiltration; invalidoath; islam; johnbrennan; johnquincyadams; leftwingnuts; mecca; nationalsecurity; nominees; oath; oathofoffice; obamanominees; obamastaffers; randpaul; religion; schumer; swearingin; talibaninthebuilding

1 posted on 03/27/2013 5:41:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 03/27/2013 5:44:51 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Let me get this straight, the head of the CIA is a muslim? What could go wrong?


3 posted on 03/27/2013 5:47:44 PM PDT by killermosquito (Buffalo, Detroit (and eventually France) is what you get when liberalism runs its course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This man is dangerous. Dangerous to our national security. People will die because of this man, and they won’t be the enemy.


4 posted on 03/27/2013 5:54:17 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We have enemies both foreign and domestic in this Regime.


5 posted on 03/27/2013 5:58:58 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Oh, Good Lord....the reset better happen sooner than laster. I am just barely over the half century mark and the number of naps required versus the number of hours on my feet are growing increasingly similar of late.

I do hate to think about being in the rear with the gear versus a hot zone...but I will be there in some role. If not soon, someone come get me out of the "home" please.

6 posted on 03/27/2013 6:00:17 PM PDT by IrishPennant (All warfare is based on deception.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Everything about the creep is scary.


7 posted on 03/27/2013 6:01:07 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The truth about the Koran (15 mins into the Trunews broadcast below):

http://www.trunews.com/Audio/m3u/3_21_13_thursday_trunews2.m3u

8 posted on 03/27/2013 6:04:53 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
It is worse than we can even imagine.

Eric Nordstrom: :"The Taliban is in the building..."

The S-has-HTF. We're just waiting for it to fall to the floor.

9 posted on 03/27/2013 6:08:28 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Brennan is basically trying to commit genocide against Muslims. I know some Freepers think that would be a good thing, but it would actually be a terrible thing.


10 posted on 03/27/2013 6:08:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Brennan is basically trying to commit genocide against Muslims.

If that is true, then why did our Muslim-sympathizing President appoint him to be CIA Director?

11 posted on 03/27/2013 6:18:51 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: okie01
If that is true, then why did our Muslim-sympathizing President appoint him to be CIA Director?

Because a lot of conservatives are way wrong about Obama. He is no pro-Muslim. He is leftist. Leftists will side with Muslims against Christianity and Western ideology, but at the end of the day, they hate all people who believe in God.

To be honest, I can't imagine why even Obama would want to put this bloodthirsty psychopath in charge of the CIA. Maybe he thinks it keeps his, "tough on foreign policy," image? It's truly scary. But I don't think there is anything American or conservative about having a drone kill an innocent father, who has nothing to do with terrorism, but happens to be Muslim. I don't think any president, from Washington to Reagan, would support that. Our country is not supposed to be like the USSR or Nazi Germany. Brennan is an evil man, and it's very depressing he is doing this to our country.

12 posted on 03/27/2013 6:27:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Very simple. Swearing on the Koran would, or should, cause him some problems. But, being a muslim, he sure couldn’t swear on the Bible.


13 posted on 03/27/2013 6:32:39 PM PDT by Terry Mross (This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Brennan is an evil man, and it's very depressing he is doing this to our country.

Neither Brennan nor Obama is a "good man", that is for sure.

14 posted on 03/27/2013 6:35:52 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

MEMO TO SENATE: Get him out of there or regret your failure


15 posted on 03/27/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Rapscallion (The people sense what Obama has in store for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Very simple. Swearing on the Koran would, or should, cause him some problems. But, being a muslim, he sure couldn’t swear on the Bible.

I think that about sums it up. Keep it simple.

16 posted on 03/27/2013 7:02:25 PM PDT by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

>>>Because a lot of conservatives are way wrong about Obama. He is no pro-Muslim. He is leftist. Leftists will side with Muslims against Christianity and Western ideology, but at the end of the day, they hate all people who believe in God.<<<

I agree. The enemy of the left right now are the remnants of the Enlightenment in the United States and some other Western countries, especially those countries founded in the Anglo expansion. The left is more than happy to support Islam in their war against the West as a way of harassing their enemy. That’s why the left never complains about the way Islam treats gays, women, civil rights, and even outright racism and chattel slavery. My gut feeling is that once the left wins conclusively here, they’ll slaughter the Islamic world. Or maybe it’ll be like Orwell predicted: “We have always been at war with Eastasia.”

God help us.


17 posted on 03/27/2013 7:51:59 PM PDT by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

How is Brennan evil and what evidence do you have that he wants genocide? I know very little about him.


18 posted on 03/27/2013 8:20:20 PM PDT by LifeComesFirst (http://rw-rebirth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The watchdog didn't bark.

As Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out: No dog barks at his owner.

Our Government is, and has been compromised for some time.

19 posted on 03/28/2013 12:11:59 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: killermosquito

We ahve a PRESIDENT who is MUSLIM and ANTI-AMERICAN in his heart....really, what could POSSIBLY go wrong???


20 posted on 03/28/2013 4:33:03 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LifeComesFirst

He;s evil because he’s a DEMOCRAT...they are ALL EVIL.


21 posted on 03/28/2013 4:34:24 AM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Here's something else very spooky about the Brennan Oath: How can you take an oath on the Constitution to defend the Constitution? Normally, one takes an oath with his hand on a Bible, or a Koran, on some other Scripture one holds sacred. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution by putting your hand on the Constitution is a skyhook. It is supported by nothing else. It neatly avoids the central question: Is this a valid oath? Can we rely on a person who creates such a stir by the simple act of taking an oath of office?

The Constitution does not require that an oath of office be taken on any book. It doesn't even require an oath; it also permits an "affirmation." And John Quincy Adams took the presidential oath of office with his hand on a law book.

22 posted on 03/28/2013 10:53:39 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson