Topic: New CIA Director takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights (Read 973 times)
March 14, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
The only thing surprising to me is that there are people out there who think politicians feel bound by any oath they take. It wouldn't matter if they swore an oath on a copy of the constitution written on the back of the Magna Carter by the top constitutional scholar with ink made from the ground up exhumed remains of the founding fathers, it's all just words to them. A formality.
March 11, 2013, 08:22:41 AM
This stuff is carefully orchestrated. It's not a coincidence. There's a reason Obama gave his oath in private both times.
March 11, 2013, 06:00:47 AM
The main thing the constitution misses is the death penalty for politicians who break it.
March 11, 2013, 05:57:10 AM
this means absolutely nothing
March 10, 2013, 02:33:26 PM
Usually it's a bible... So what's your point?
March 10, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
If it was an accident, it's extremely odd that it fits. If it was an accident, Brennan will take a second oath, WITH the Bill of Rights.
But it still wouldn't matter, because they all will ignore it and lie through their teeth, even if they can recite the whole thing from memory
But it still wouldn't matter, because they all will ignore it and lie through their teeth, even if they can recite the whole thing from memory
March 10, 2013, 02:13:52 PM
Quote
Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states.
So either the new CIA director is ignorant of American history or he's well aware of what he's doing. Neither option bodes well for those of us with an attachment to our lives, liberty and property.
Jump to: