This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
CIA Head Sworn In On Draft Constitution WITHOUT Bill of Rights
The government has absolutely shred the Bill of Rights in the last decade or so.
New CIA boss John Brennan endorses torture, assassination of unidentified strangers (including Americans) without due process, and spying on all Americans.
As such, it is fitting that Mr. Brennan specially requested that he be sworn in on a draft of the Constitution lacking the Bill of Rights.
A draft which doesn’t even begin with the famous preamble we all know and love:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ....
But rather starts with:
We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennslyvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity….
That has a very different tone from the final version of the Constitution.
Here’s the actual version Brennan swore in on, courtesy of the National Archives (click any image for larger view):
The handwriting is that of George Washington.
Washington was a brave leader (but a terrible general). More importantly, he was one man … and the whole idea of the Bill of Rights is that the people have inalienable rights – e.g. no deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law – which cannot be taken away by any leader … including the president or the head of the CIA.
»
- advertisements -
Brennan is a convert to Islam and has no compunction of killing Americans.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Only the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is good for U.S. citizens.
The whining, two faced machinations and malfeasance of newcomers is just plain wrong, whatever they call themselves.
For the Republic or against it. Easy question. Only one correct answer, in my opinion.
geo will said once, that "ghwbush wanted to be commander in chief of a fe New England states, and bill clinton wants to be governor of them all.." as for obama, he has the cool detachment of someone with no skin in the game
O'bomba went quietly to his bed after being told that the Benghazi embassy was under attack,, the Ambassador was in danger, along with the rest of the staff.
O'bomba is handled by the only 'friend' closely at his side: the jewess psychiatrist/zionist wotsername. Michelle is just in it to win it, whatever 'it' is for her vanity.
Not surprising, given O'bomba's dysfunctional family background, deeply rooted in crypto-communism, child abuse and CIA shenanigans, courtesy of mommy dearest and her weird parents.
Hey, at least hi is smart enough not to swear in on the bible.
Saved himself a step or two of hell and damnation he did.
See: George Carlin's bit about swearing on a bible
Hint: None of it fuckin' matters, draft or otherwise...
Then you get the satanists and tyranny you apparently deserve, pet. Heil!
GeoEngineering has depleted Plegaic fish by 93%.
Hello Chemtrials, HAARP, and attenna towers.
Goodbye mackeral, tuna, herring, ..........
Not to mention the radioactive waste flowing out of Fukishima
you have no idea of the wicked powers who govern amerika....they are all nazis - i do not say that with hyperbole....the rockefeller axis of evil and bush crime syndicate are all true blue nazis - baby bush said it well - "the constitution is nothing but a goddamned piece of paper." he meant it. his bosses mean it....the gestapo will be sent to murder americans in greater numbers starting this year....people will disappear and internet sites shutdown or removed from search engines so that they cannot be found......google is a pure nazi organization with deep ties to the bush crimes syndicate....
these nazis gave us hitler, stalin, and mussolini - they were puppets of wall street and self annointed 5th column plutocratic traitors....they will use overwhelming force to establish martial law - and it will happen this year....
Not sure about this year on the streets, but generally agree with you.
The Nazis never went away. The people who funded them looked upon it as a failed experiment, and they have refined their terror tactics...for the few, against the many.
If people understood the modern money system, there would be revolution by morning, said Henry Ford.
Al-CiAda understands...as does the bin Laden family. Osama bin laden's brother was meeting George Bush Snr in Washington on 9/11 to discuss their mutual interests in the Carlyle Group, and other things. Money is 24/7, color blind...so think the Nazis, zionists, and their lil helpers in the slave nation worlds of islam and communism and socialism.
The Bush Crime Family/CIA has a very long and very ...
DARK LEGACYhttp://vimeo.com/20001264
A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.
+ Johnson. + oil-igarchs+the mafia. Jack was no angel, but his killers are wicked. All serial satanists and child abusers, psychopaths.
One killer- Oswald.
Now are we talking about satanists or those Pope and King satanists or the mason satanists or.... I just have trouble keeping track of this shit I mean, is it.........SATAN!?!
And by satan that means Jews are off the table automatically right? Cuz that's race? Ethnicity-ism-ligion?
And the default WASP is legitimate cuz they're too smart to be communist but too stupid to be Jews...?? Whoa. That's deep. It's like the same, but different. Like Jan from the Brady Bunch. Who gives a fuck about her? And you can't take THAT religion seriously anyway cuz what kinda religion comes from a literal "KING??" James and Henry and wives and you know... foundations for a republic. LOL.
BULLSHIT INNUENDO... all the freaking time from you people.
Silly person. Or should I say 'you people'? You have too much to say for one so dumb.
Not all jews are zionists, a very petty 20th century power construct. Fool.
Heil! You little Nazi freak.
Haha... that's funny. Not only lacking a Bill of Rights, but the main text is full of all sorts of edits, strike outs, changes, etc.
Pretty much says it all!
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
Some might say that at least the man has some morals. He will not knowingly take an oath to do something he has no intention of honoring.
However, I am somewhat troubled by that "purpose of evasion" part of the oath...... swearing/taking your oath, on just a "part" of the document you are committing to up hold.<sarc>
Yes, I share your deep reservations. And when you quote the sincere words, kinda makes me get a bit emotional. How very sad that the Republic has fallen into the hands of Nazis, mostly since WWII, and the CIA and other government agencies imported Hitler's favorites to the U.S.
Their Trialateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations employ pets like credulous, ambitious O'bomba.
Those are the gangsta bankstas originated in Germany, Britain, Russia, and France. All bat shit crazy zionists who have no heart for jews, christians, nor anyone else.
Money and power is their sole aim. Pity, as jews in New England helped George Washington found the new republic. Zionism is a new thing, circa early 20th century.
Tsk. This hubris will offend more than it wins over in these United States of America.
Personally, I do prefer a Republic whereby rights are given only to those who bear responsibilities; make a contribution to the Republic, prove their worth, and devotion.
No second passport. Stay and pay. If you are here to play, and take more than you give, best find some place else. Same for your family and friends.
However, haste makes waste, and only a frightened Administration in a hurry would swear in a CIA wannabe chief in this somewhat sly way.
I prefer liberty, and a free society where no one has the power to force anyone to do anything. A long as the state exists and is able to use force to fund itself, we have a problem. The solution is a private market for security and all of the other 'services' provided at the point of a gun.
You are confused, comrade. 'no one has the power to force', yet you then say other services provided 'at the point of a gun'.
Newly arrived, are you? Live in New York or Britain?
George, We have plenty of issues in this world to drive conspiracy theories and make us paranoid, but this is not one that matters. To understand the meaning of the constitution today, one must carry many court decisions with you. For example, if I went to a diner in San Franscico that only sold local produce and the owner did not serve me because I was a white man, the owner would be in violation of the interstate commerce clause. Who would have thought.
Hell, the anti-federalist thought the US Constitution limited state power more without attaching the Bill of Rights.
edit... found it ;)
where, in whose under wear?
I smell FP troll poop...... lol
Can't you just stifle yourself?
as long as it makes you laff thats fine!
Its interesting to note that the government guarantees each state its protection right from inception. Its not the function of a local state militia. Also the republican form of government is based on one man one vote; aka democracy and not on cooption of legislators by a unelected elite or by appontment.
In fact amongst the top officers of government ONLY the 9 judges of the Supreme court are NOT elected by the people but appointees of Potus etc. Whence the problems in its functioning as has become more and more apparent lately.
Unlike other republics, the USA has based its legislature on the electoral process in both houses and even at state municipal levels where even the state prosecutor is elected.
So the Republican structure of the USA is totally based on democracy...There is NO contradiction between republican rule and democracy function in the US constitution, as some would like to highlight. In fact the US republic could not exist without one man one vote at all echelons of government; federal, state and municipal...unlike a lot of other republics where upper house members are not elected by the people but coopted by lower house legislators or by municipal electees (mayors of cities). Such a system exists in France and makes the upper house often a surrogate of lower house who have coopted them... Why then is democracy seen as impediment to the Republic and to "iron clad" rule of law?
BTW : since when is law iron clad? Laws can always been changed by the elected legislator, those who have the REPUBLICAN power; aka fiscal laws for example, depending on changing economic circumstances (like war or depression). Why must fiscal laws be poured in concrete and considered like inalienable rights as for the individual bill of rights?
That reasoning is beyond me...we stay in republic, as long as the elected vote the laws, not Potus via decree.
"So the Republican structure of the USA is totally based on democracy...There is NO contradiction between republican rule and democracy function in the US constitution, as some would like to highlight."
Actually, yes. A large one.
The ORIGINAL contract between the People and the FEDERAL government stipulated that federal senators were to be drawn from each elected INDIVIDUAL state's bodies of representatives. Not popularly elected FOR the federal office but sent to Washington to look after the states governments interests.
This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment William Jennings Bryant & "progressives"...again, 1913, in that 85yr time span we discussed, going back to our earlier tete a tete.
"In fact the US republic could not exist without one man one vote at all echelons of government; federal, state and municipal..."
It does not exist now...see above...they are popularly elected having the affect of TWO Houses of Representatives, just one is smaller in number and can more efficiently divide the spoils of someone elses labor. For proof, let us turn to how many enter the "upper chamber" now as commoners (from the lower chamber, the House) and leave as millionaires.
And while we're on this tortured bureaucratic subject, can we now, at last, say (not you falak, you can't legally vote here, not yet anyways)...its a very bad idea to have nothing but >>>ex-senators<<< running the top levels of the Executive Branch of the federal government?
Obama
Biden
Kerry
Clinton X
Hagel
////////////////////////////
Let me add one more thing about these cocksuckers in the Senate...these are the ones who took the Obama-Bait while Paul was standing there doing his job...
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Bob Corker
Senator Kelly Ayotte
Senator John McCain
Senator Dan Coats
Senator Tom Coburn
Senator Richard Burr
Senator Mike Johanns
Senator Pat Toomey
Senator Ron Johnson
Senator John Hoeven
Senator Saxby Chambliss
And there's this claim:
<iframe width="960" height="720" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lVsMUpPgdT0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You have no idea how the government was constructed. The Founders went to great lengths to limit the "passions" of the common man and therefore created a Constitutional Republic that ACTIVELY limited democracy.
The President is elected by the electoral college, whom originally had zero requirement to consider the popular vote.
The Senate was elected by state legislators, until Wilson worked his little trick to diminish state power.
The Supreme Court is appointed FOR LIFE.
It was only the legislature that was allowed to be democratic and then, only with the knowledge it could be overruled by three other parts of the federal structure.
The rest of your comment is your opinion and fine with that, but please don't contribute to the rampant ignorance of America and the world.
Lincoln didn't change the law to empower the fed over the States. The traitors who killed him did that. Which is why they killed him. Wilson was the new #2 for phase 2, central bank takeover and phase 3, eliminate domestic resistance by continuous war. POSUS
No. Lincoln merely ignored it and acted in direct violation of international law for that time. He acted as a tyrant, suspending habeus corpus and taking on powers the executive had never attempted before. The Patriots that killed him had every reason to defend the liberty he had destroyed.
Please cite your sources. Lincoln is the most lied about president; so far.
"A Peoples History of The United States" by Zinn. "A New Economic View Of American History" by Atack and Passell. The Suspension of Habeus Corpus and declaration of Martial Law can be found in any textbook- take your choice. There is no place in the Constitution that denies the States the right to secede. In fact, the power of the states as protected by the tenth amendment , placed serious limitations on the Federal Government and its' sphere of influence.
I agree Lincoln is one of the most lied about presidents, but in his case, it was all to make a hero out of a traitor.
Don't forget that Lincoln instituted the very first federal income tax during the Civil War. It was promptly declared unconstitutional.
http://archive.org/download/WilliamCooperhourOfTheTimePart8/WilliamCoope...
Yale U History Dean Charles Beard
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Economic_Interpretation_of_the_Constitu...
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16960
Since I've read 'An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution", you will have to do better. I remember nothing that allows the federal government to stop secession. Nor is it eloquent on the issue of the suspension of habeau corpus and martial law. While the delegates showed a definite affinity for the president as a king- George Washington put that idea to rest.
Your first reference doesn't show up.
As for Charles Beards," History of the United States", you might want to examine page 210.
If you are going to use citations, you might want to explain them. You are not the only person to have studied revisionist history.
Revisionist history? Socialist Zinn qualifies. I read him and found he presented the aspects of the case that favored his conclusion, leaving out significant details that would color the context of the events otherwise. If I were in a cell with only Zinn's books I still wouldn't agree with you. He tells the truth like a criminal lawyer. Cicero was quite enamored with Cicero. Its a story for sheltered children; no others would believe it.
Lincoln has been dug up and tattooed by every manipulative fraud who found it easier to sell Lincoln brand snake oil than to stand on the shaky facts of their singular self-interest.
The first link works for me. Its a start.
You don't seem to understand. Revisionist history is a school of history, of which Charles Beard and William Appleman were central characters. Of course Zinn qualifies. You still haven't provided a defense of your assertions. Perhaps, you just are enamored with Spielberg.
William Cooper, really? He was a conspiracy researcher, never a historian. He was called out for plagiarism by UFologists. You really want to make your stand there?
Your only legitimate reference is Beard and you have no citations from his works. At least I read the books.
You have to decide for yourself what is disinfo by invested parties. UFOlogists? In this matter Cooper was a spokesperson reading from a body of research, citing his sources, which can be verified. I'll stand with his references. Beard was right about FDR & Pearl Harbor ff. His enemies discredited him to advance their propaganda. The basis of his research is financial history; it holds up. The politicians obey the money or die, and often enough die anyway to advance the agenda, so its a good place to start. Another good place to start is the trail of bodies and wrongful prosecutions of political actors. "At least I read the books?" So did I. Did you understand them? Beard's work corelates with the international financial picture of the day, which predicates the current situation. He maps the money trail, which you can follow to the present.
http://archive.org/details/TheEmpireOftheCity
I have no contention with Beard, but you have yet to use him to support your arguments. Nor is Beard an economic historian, but he is a diligent one. You might want to read his own caveats from his books. I understand there are trails of bodies as well, still you fail to support your arguments concerning Lincoln, you fail to provide citations of actual pages or statements and you fail to provide an argument in regards to mine.
You can continue to run, but you cannot hide. Cooper was a plagarist, this puts the onus on you to credit his information. Further, he is not a historian or expert on Lincoln. If you're going to stand by his references, then you need to provide them. Many authors have mapped the money trail, but what has this to do with Lincoln?
You attempt to change the focus, which is the hallmark of the propagandist. If your are going to resort to disinformation claims, then provide the reasoning why and how it relates to Lincoln. If Cooper was a spokesperson, then for whom? For they would be the real experts. A body of research is nothing without an understanding of how and why it was put together, what was kept and what was left out.
Many people were right about FDR and Pearl Harbor, many were discredited, but being discredited is not the same as being credible. Now, if you read the books, then find your support and provide it, I have the books right here.
As for Knuth, it looks like an interesting book, I have covered this area extensively through other authors, so it would not be useful for me (Mullins, Flynn, Raico, Garrett, etc). Still, nothing there about Lincoln.
Only the people Cooper exposed call him a plaguerist. If you follow the first link you'll have your references. Even if Cooper were a lying POS lobbyist, all he is doing is reading reports for which he gives proper citations. Now you're just being an asshole. By your own admission Zinn is not a reliable source and you have not offered a better source for your assertion that what was done was done by Lincoln, or by his plan. DYOH, be your own judge. I have nothing to add.
I'm not going to listen to a radio broadcast for references. What a tool. Cooper exposed? Plaguarism is pretty simple- it has to do with copyright. I never said Zinn is not a reliable source, now you're just lying. This is the problem with people that fail to take on the study of a subject seriously, you get trapped by a few author's set of beliefs, without ever checking them out against the entire field.
Like Knuth, aryan supremecists? You never once provided a single citation to challenge mine. Not one. You're an intellectual coward. You have nothing to add, because you never had anything to contribute.
You're a mess.
Lincoln was America's Caesar you jingo moron. He was a self-appointed military dictator who saw himself as above the law and behaved accordingly. A crude, ignorant, petty and dishonest man without honor. The kind of man that fawning court historians and little power-worshipping creeps like you love to mythologize. It's only too bad that he wasn't killed much earlier, before he had the chance to wreak so much havoc on the country.
Wow, you're good. So you know already what is going to happen when 008 "emancipates" the illegals. We'll be on the same side. Try not to shoot me in the back.
Who benefitted from the slaughter of fighting age Irish men?
.
The Founders went to great lengths to limit the "passions" of the common man and therefore created a Constitutional Republic that ACTIVELY limited democracy....
If that was the MAIN focus of US founding fathers and government then they have achieved it with Jamie Dimon and Ben Bernanke running the world.
Your passion for elitist republicanism and libertarian grass roots freedom are SO VISIBLY IN CONTRADICTION that it is reasoning by the absurd...We have right now in front of our very eyes, the ideal world that you dream about according the criteria you have just specified in your own words.
We have a NON elected power structure behind the curtain that runs the political institutions of the USA and of the world via Pax Americana. THAT IS OUR EVERY DAY REALITY.
So you should be totally happy with that...why the bitching then at ZH?
We have the precise construct you dream about. An elitist Oligarchy that runs the world.
All the more so that ZH is so good at pointing out on a day to day basis, as within a structured historical framework, the rationale of this power play from 1913 to this day; aka the private sector capitalist financial thread of the West. We have all the salient financial and geo political facts at our disposal right here...
I can't for the life of me understand how the libertarian clique at ZH can :
1° Proclaim that Republic and Senate/House should not intervene in tax impositions and building social safety nets against the interests of certain classes of society, the upper echelons (also admittedly as NMn says some of the lower ones, no doubt).
2° Proclaim that too much people's power is harmful to society, and that these matters should be decided by people whose pedigree is not elective (passion impulse) but cooptive or appointed (Supreme court; for life).
3° Proclaim that the scions of imperial international capitalism of USA, who run world commerce; aka the Banksta cabal, are ruining the general interest and middle America, whereas these people are the very incarnation of the elites that emerged 'cos in fact the US Congress, behind the curtain, APPLIED DE FACTO the MINDSET so proudly proclaimed in 2° above!
This reasoning is the snake that swallows its tail; totally circular.
It is because these three principles are not compatible and have been pushed to their absurd limits that we are where we are...NOT THAT I SUPPORT PURE POPULIST STATISIM AND LIVING BEYOND YOUR MEANS...AKA STATE FASCISM AS OPPOSED TO CURRENT GLOBAL CORPOFASCISM.
Sorry, I'm not buyin this badly baked cake!
Democracy is the worst system barring all others; and concentration of elitist power unchecked leads to "primus inter pares"...and we know what that means in the historical thread of civilization.
It must hurt to have your ignorance so exposed. So, rather than fess up, you choose to attack me personally and attribute qualities to me, with even more ignorance of how I believe.
My very words, in no way, encourage elitist republicanism or grass roots libertarianism, regardless of their merits or shortcomings. You sir, are a liar and not even a very good one.
Rather than defend your ignorance, you hope to change the focus with an attack. Railing against the Elites as if I were one of them, which anyone knows, I am not. You champion democracy and then tear it down in your last sentence. Do you think attention spans are that short?
You can complain and lie all you want, but it will not change what the Constitution is and how it was constructed, but it will put a spotlight on your ignorance. Wouldn't it be easier to just educate yourself?