It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Take a wild ride with me down a rabbit hole - Barack Obama was never President

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.

"So help me God" means nothing.

He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.

"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.

I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.

"So help me God" means nothing.

He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.

"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.

I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.


I tried this explanation already. Apparently it doesn't work because reasons.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting theory, however, Im not sure the use of the word 'God' indicates any PARTICULAR religious test, as the language of The Constitution prohibits, rather a quite generic one.

Like you said though, he was apparently free to decline with a "no" in response to that question. I dont think it could be used to deny him the office. Although it would piss off the religious folk im sure.


"God" plus the question mark = religious test.

As an atheist, I would not be able to affirm my oath with that question.



As an atheist, you would not ask the Chief Justice to include the line after completing your oath of office.

Obama did.


No, he did not. Obama requested that the phrase "So help me God" be used TO CONCLUDE the Oath. Reread the affidavit I posted in my OP.

Roberts stated he delivered it AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH, as a question of affirmation.

Yes, there are nuances here...and I believe they were all very deliberate.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I believe the reason behind the 4 inaugurations is that we have 2 Obamas. great OP!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.

"So help me God" means nothing.

He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.

"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.

I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.


Again, reread the affidavit I posted in my OP. Obama's expressed wishes were to CONCLUDE THE OATH with the phrase, "So help me God."

Roberts stated his intent was to deliver the line AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH.

Again, it's all so very nuanced, I tend to think it was a deliberate 'mistake.'

ETA: Here is the affidavit and portion I included on it from my OP:

"Below is the affidavit stating Obama’s wishes and Chief Justice Roberts’ intent:

link

Wikipedia noted what Roberts’ expressed intent was, as follows, with regard to a lawsuit concerning the separation of church & state:


Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.
link"
edit on 19-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Interesting theory, however, Im not sure the use of the word 'God' indicates any PARTICULAR religious test, as the language of The Constitution prohibits, rather a quite generic one.

Like you said though, he was apparently free to decline with a "no" in response to that question. I dont think it could be used to deny him the office. Although it would piss off the religious folk im sure.


"God" plus the question mark = religious test.

As an atheist, I would not be able to affirm my oath with that question.



As an atheist, you would not ask the Chief Justice to include the line after completing your oath of office.

Obama did.


No, he did not. Obama requested that the phrase "So help me God" be used TO CONCLUDE the Oath. Reread the affidavit I posted in my OP.

Roberts stated he delivered it AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH, as a question of affirmation.

Yes, there are nuances here...and I believe they were all very deliberate.


Obama could've said he wanted to conclude the oath with "suns out guns out bitches!" and the oath still concludes with "Constitution of the United States." The exact wording of the oath is literally spelled out for you in the Constitution. The president can wish to do any damn thing he pleases, but the Oath is still a specific set of 35 words in a specific order.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
From a technical standpoint, this is very interesting. Whether it was meant to create a straw man presidency for some reason...i hvae no clue. But from the perspective of standardizing the process....this is a perfect example of why corporations do silly things like only ask the preapproved questions during an interview, and make sure all candidates get those same questions asked in the same way.

Technicalities. Some may call it pedantic....but murderers have walked because of them.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: schuyler

I am saying Roberts delivered the line as a question. That is the difference.

I can find no other Justice that did this.

ETA: And, in fact, Joe Biden's Oath was not administered that way either.


Doesn't really matter. The differences do not constitute any kind of "fraud" or misuse. It's not worth arguing over. If you're as smart as your first post insists you are, it's time to back out, which you said you were willing to do. Your argument is equivalent to complaining a writer used a comma when he ought to have used a semi-colon, therefore whatever he wrote is invalid because your interpretation of proper grammar (not your teacher's interpretation) is that he ought to have used the latter. This is an insane thing to spend any significant time over.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
From a technical standpoint, this is very interesting. Whether it was meant to create a straw man presidency for some reason...i hvae no clue. But from the perspective of standardizing the process....this is a perfect example of why corporations do silly things like only ask the preapproved questions during an interview, and make sure all candidates get those same questions asked in the same way.

Technicalities. Some may call it pedantic....but murderers have walked because of them.

True, but spinning a narrative that Obama's Presidency is illegitimate because of it is stupid. Like I said earlier, if this really became a sticking point to some lobby or another the government would just change the way the oath is done. It wouldn't retroactively say that previous Presidents weren't really Presidents. That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.
edit on 19-10-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Technicalities. Some may call it pedantic....but murderers have walked because of them.


Amen.




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
it's time to back out, which you said you were willing to do.


ha.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well its nice to see a ATS member who actually bothers to go to the effort of a well written and original thread so i can appreciate that.

Shame about the actual content however.

Obama took the Oath of office he has been PTOUS for almost 8 years and i really do believe that if there was any serious legal objection to how he had taken his oath then there would have been loads of legal challenges put forward before he even took step inside the oval office.

I honestly think this just comes down to being pedantic.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Watched the videos. In the Reagan and Kennedy oaths the Chief Justice says "So help YOU God". I watched the Obama videos and I don't see a question. I think you're looking at this too deeply. Sometimes when you stare into the abyss, it stares back at you.
edit on 10/19/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.


And that is a statement that only a political hack could believe is true.

Jesus Christ, i'd do anything to be able to talk about politics with people, without them throwing out this stupid "right wing" or "liberal wingnut" nonsense.

That kind of thinking is so far beneath us as Americans. I only hope that I can live to see people actually realize it.

You DO realize this is a conspiracy site, right?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Watched the videos. In the Reagan and Kennedy oaths the Chief Justice says "So help YOU God". I watched the Obama videos and I don't see a question. You're mistaking it for one. I think you're looking at this too deeply. Sometimes when you stare into the abyss, it stares back at you.


I also posted the official transcripts.

Let's look again at what i posted, and rewatch the videos:

Ronald Reagan 1981:

Official Transcript
Chief Justice: So help YOU God.
President Reagan: So help ME God.


John F. Kennedy 1961:

Chief Justice: So help YOU God.
President Kennedy: So help ME God.
Official Transcript



AND if you rewatch Obama's oaths and Reagan and Kennedy's you'll note the line was not delivered with the inflaction of a question and neither responded by nodding.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: MotherMayEye

His repetition of the body of the oath IS the affirmation.

"So help me God" means nothing.

He's already promising (whatever good that does) to do the job.

"So help me God" is a meaningless token gesture to people who think it means something.

I say he can decline God's help or refrain from asking for it and still affirm the oath to accept the office.


Again, reread the affidavit I posted in my OP. Obama's expressed wishes were to CONCLUDE THE OATH with the phrase, "So help me God."

Roberts stated his intent was to deliver the line AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH.

Again, it's all so very nuanced, I tend to think it was a deliberate 'mistake.'

ETA: Here is the affidavit and portion I included on it from my OP:

"Below is the affidavit stating Obama’s wishes and Chief Justice Roberts’ intent:

link

Wikipedia noted what Roberts’ expressed intent was, as follows, with regard to a lawsuit concerning the separation of church & state:


Chief Justice Roberts' reply was that his "prompting" for these four extra-constitutional words were to be recited "after" the oath of office, and not as a part of the oath as claimed in the suit.
link"


Good of you to repost evidence disproving your theory.

The intent was for the phrase to be said after the oath was taken. Which, according to the Oath that's defined in the Constitution, the phrase was used after the Oath was completed.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's a spin that only a right wing partisan person would spin.


And that is a statement that only a political hack could believe is true.

Jesus Christ, i'd do anything to be able to talk about politics with people, without them throwing out this stupid "right wing" or "liberal wingnut" nonsense.

That kind of thinking is so far beneath us as Americans. I only hope that I can live to see people actually realize it.

You DO realize this is a conspiracy site, right?

I knew I would be flamed, but I honestly tried to put together a thoughtful thread for an audience I largely appreciate and respect. It took me two days, to be honest, and I already had much of the material compiled.

It would be nice to dispense with all the partisan-nastiness and be treated thoughtfully in return. Too much to hope for, I guess.
edit on 19-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Look. I'm agreeing with you. IF there is any legitmacy to the OP's claims the issue would be resolved rather quickly and with minimal effort. It would just be a matter of procedure. Trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and say that Obama isn't the real President because of this is just partisan spin no matter how you want to slice it. You can admit it or not. You can get angry at me for pointing it out. I really don't care, but its true.

PS: I don't have to believe every conspiracy that crosses my nose. Why is this being a conspiracy site matter? Pointing out partisan spin shouldn't take a backseat just because its being presented as a conspiracy theory. The right is currently face deep in unsourced CT's. I have less respect for the conspiracy theory world than I ever had.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And these past eight years were just a dream! Maybe if we wake up, the good old days of W. will still be in effect?

Yeah, you're onto something, MotherMayEye. We, the people of the USA, should sue the government. Those jerks!



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Right.

Roberts added it on (as he states as his intention) AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE OATH.

The oath was concluded, THEN Roberts added on the little prayer REQUESTED BY Barack.

It isnt part of the oath itself even if Obama requested that it be included AS the conclusion of the oath.

The requested prayer comes AFTER the oath has been concluded.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join