Not only, is SOD a convert to the Muslim Faith, he elected to avoid using a Bible to place his hand upon during the wearing in. What's even more interesting is that he elected to place his hand on a copy of the Consititution from 1787 that had George Washington's handwriting and annotations on it. He told Obama he requested this document from the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law!
What is even more interesting with his choice of Constitutions to place his hand on in the swearing ceremony, was that this particular version of the Constitution did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments – or any of the other amendments now included in our Constitution, the report said? Furthermore, it should be noted that "The Bill of Rights" did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, four years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.
I guess he meant it when he said he intended to reaffirm his commit himself to the rule of the law [sounds like a little too much like Shariah law]!
SEE :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/john-brennan-sworn-in_n_2836704.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
One last point from political blogger, Olivier Knox, at Yahoo.com, who writes that in his opinion, the absence of the Bill of Rights in the document reflects the lack of, "Freedom of speech and of the press; the right to bear arms; the Fourth Amendment ban on ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and the right to a jury trial,” the report said.
Knox goes on to write, "Senator Paul had been filibustering Brennan’s nomination because the Obama administration had made statements that the president might have the authority to order lethal drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil. Brennan worked with Obama’s overseas drone program, which has killed hundreds, while the security adviser."
Knox also noted that, Attorney General Eric Holder told Paul in response to a question from the senator that the U.S. never has carried out a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil, and it would be “unlikely.” However, Holder also said he could not rule it out entirely. In fact, Holder said, “It is possible; I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder’s letter said.
He confirmed Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Should we be concerned? Well, Rand Paul was, and after the actions of this private swearing-in ceremony, reported on by people like Knox, maybe we should all be concerned, or at least a little troubled with what DC is doing to infringe on our rights as a Democratic republic, based upon freedoms given and provided for in a Constitution that is current and up to date; not one from 1787, lacking the necessary amendments voted on and ratified over the years to make America what she is today!
America, we weep for you :tear::tear::tear:
What is even more interesting with his choice of Constitutions to place his hand on in the swearing ceremony, was that this particular version of the Constitution did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments – or any of the other amendments now included in our Constitution, the report said? Furthermore, it should be noted that "The Bill of Rights" did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, four years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.
I guess he meant it when he said he intended to reaffirm his commit himself to the rule of the law [sounds like a little too much like Shariah law]!
SEE :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/john-brennan-sworn-in_n_2836704.html?icid=hp_front_top_art
One last point from political blogger, Olivier Knox, at Yahoo.com, who writes that in his opinion, the absence of the Bill of Rights in the document reflects the lack of, "Freedom of speech and of the press; the right to bear arms; the Fourth Amendment ban on ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and the right to a jury trial,” the report said.
Knox goes on to write, "Senator Paul had been filibustering Brennan’s nomination because the Obama administration had made statements that the president might have the authority to order lethal drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil. Brennan worked with Obama’s overseas drone program, which has killed hundreds, while the security adviser."
Knox also noted that, Attorney General Eric Holder told Paul in response to a question from the senator that the U.S. never has carried out a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil, and it would be “unlikely.” However, Holder also said he could not rule it out entirely. In fact, Holder said, “It is possible; I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder’s letter said.
He confirmed Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Should we be concerned? Well, Rand Paul was, and after the actions of this private swearing-in ceremony, reported on by people like Knox, maybe we should all be concerned, or at least a little troubled with what DC is doing to infringe on our rights as a Democratic republic, based upon freedoms given and provided for in a Constitution that is current and up to date; not one from 1787, lacking the necessary amendments voted on and ratified over the years to make America what she is today!
America, we weep for you :tear::tear::tear:
Last edited by a moderator:
raying: