Skip to comments.Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In
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. Brennans 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?
Let me get this straight, the head of the CIA is a muslim? What could go wrong?
This man is dangerous. Dangerous to our national security. People will die because of this man, and they won’t be the enemy.
We have enemies both foreign and domestic in this Regime.
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.
Everything about the creep is scary.
Eric Nordstrom: :"The Taliban is in the building..."
The S-has-HTF. We're just waiting for it to fall to the floor.
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.
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.
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.
Neither Brennan nor Obama is a "good man", that is for sure.
MEMO TO SENATE: Get him out of there or regret your failure
I think that about sums it up. Keep it simple.
>>>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.
How is Brennan evil and what evidence do you have that he wants genocide? I know very little about him.
As Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out: No dog barks at his owner.
Our Government is, and has been compromised for some time.
We ahve a PRESIDENT who is MUSLIM and ANTI-AMERICAN in his heart....really, what could POSSIBLY go wrong???