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.

 

Barack Obama sworn in again, but without a Bible

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


Yes, let's not lose hope. He seems to be an amazing person. And has said he is going to fix everything. Let's hope he can do it! (Weird... Larry King said "hope" in regards to Obama at the exact time I typed hope... hahaha)




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This is sad some are making a big deal over this. Get a life. Do you really think God would want you to make a big deal of this?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
So foget about the bible, I thought it was seperation of church and state anyhow.

The question I have is how are they going to fix the world and they can't ever get the swearing in right, to start with?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I don't feel like this is as big of a deal as the media are making it out to be. The first time chief justice screwed up a little; but with Bible in hand. The second time they got the wording right but no Bible. Either way..this is all just superstitious nonsense to assume that something bad may happen as a result of the screw ups.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
So what if Obama did not use a Bible the second time. It is just a book of religious law used by Christians; no different to any other Holy book (Koran etc).

The USA, like a lot of other countries is multicultural and therefore there are lots of different religions so should Obama have sworn on a stack of diffferent holy law texts ?? Swearing an oath on a Bible is just as ridiculous as using a Superman comic, or a copy of Time magazine.

I had to make an appearance in court once and I refused to swear on the bible because this book actually means nothing to me. I instead elected to raise my right hand and swear to tell the truth.

I also do not understand why some people have to seek a conspiracy in this.

take care all
res



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
To my mind, this entire episode has been most fascinating. Let's look at the initial swearing in.



Chief Justice Roberts seemed to say "to" rather than "of." The word "faithfully" got lost in this confusion and tacked on at the end of the phrase. Obama noticed it and paused after saying, "...that I will execute -"

Then the Chief Justice has another go and still gets it wrong with, “...faithfully the office of President of the United States.” Omitting the word "execute."

Then it's Obama's turn to get it wrong again in repeating the Chief Justices initial mistake by putting "faithfully" at the end of the phrase.

This from two supposed Constitutional experts?

Roberts is the one to be held accoutable for this. Now if you were to look for some kind of funny business going on here: Could it be that Roberts deliberately mis-stated the oath and in doing so led Obama astray? It's also funny that the last President before Obama to have created such a deified persona was Kennedy and the word that was at the centre of the problem was "execute."

This was the "public" ritual.

The covert oath took 25 seconds to enact. There were nine witnesses; four aides, four journalists and a White House photographer.



The covert oath took place in the White House Map Room. What surprised me is that no reference is made by the media concerning the portrait hanging between the two men as they enact the ritual.

And a ritual is what it is.

So who is this genius loci hanging in the portrait?

Benjamin Latrobe, the Great Architect of the U.S. Capitol.

As for the omission of the Bible, I see nothing ominous there (strangely enough). As has been stated already in this thread, he is not the first. Johnson used a missal for his swearing in on Air Force One and going way back, Washington did not use a Bible at his.

[edit on 25/1/2009 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
its stupid how you have to swear on a bible to 'god', like you have swear it in court as well 'the whole truth so help me god'. I think its pretty lame i mean these guys are supposed to be of the highest order and there making you swear on something that isnt proven to exist, so technically if you dont believe in god swearing on its name would hold no meaning.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba

The covert oath took 25 seconds to enact. There were nine witnesses; four aides, four journalists and a White House photographer.



The covert oath took place in the White House Map Room. What surprised me is that no reference is made by the media concerning the portrait hanging between the two men as they enact the ritual.

And a ritual is what it is.

So who is this genius loci hanging in the portrait?

Benjamin Latrobe, the Great Architect of the U.S. Capitol.


I didn't know who Benjamin Latrobe was so I did a quick search:



From the scottish rite website:

"Regarding Brother Latrobe's Masonic membership, he was initiated in the Lodge of Antiquity No. 2, London, 1788, and served as Junior Warden 1789–90. When he came to the United States, he affiliated with Lodge No. 54, Richmond, Virginia." source

Hmmmmmm....



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


if you check the astrological alignments for inauguration dat mercury is retrograde and there are a couple of other notables too like the moon being void. forgive if i am wrong on this observation,this would have actually been a rotten outcome if he had not retaken the oath the next day and his term of office would have come to boo,bible or no bible it jsu tells us that both parties look to the sky for guidance,as it is obama's re- swearing of the oath the next day overides the arlier attempt and as such this presidency will come to something.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Well as i see it the oath really doesn't matter, past presidents promise on the same oath and like G. W. Bush, Senior, Clinton, Roosevelt, Woodrow Willson, the list goes on and on and on. They all promised to up hold the upmost "sacred" oath and turn around just to screw everyone anyways, even with the knowledge of what is happening and somtimes just to keep people in the dark.

(except for the few good presidents, jackson, lincoln, jfk, and those whom were tried to be assaniated)

As history shows the victor writes history, with that comes the control of every person in that nation. With that said, Obama may have good intentions, but words are words and actions tend to speak louder. The people of the world will see what Obama does in his admin, but it may not be what most people expected.

here are a few research links for anyone interested.

www.illuminati-news.com... -mr willson

www.youtube.com... -jfk speech

www.youtube.com... -jfk killing (secret service stand down)

www.youtube.com... - jack nick. hydrogen car



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The Oath and the bible don't matter. The bible still has some good knowledge if looked at differently though and not used for religion. People break promises all the time. Lets take G.W. Bush, his father, clinton, roosevelt, willson and a few others. They broke the oath quicker then a heartbeat. So what difference will obama make? If he is allowed to do the things he says then there might be change, but until he does a few things his words are meaningless.

Most presidents are bad, the few good ones were taken out, lincoln, jfk, Jackson (was attempted), and a few others.

Here are some research links, have at.

www.youtube.com... - project Philly

www.youtube.com... - secret service standdown

www.youtube.com... - jack nick. hydrogen car

www.youtube.com... - jfk speech

www.illuminati-news.com... - edward mandel house and willson



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by danman23

Originally posted by projectvxn
www.usconstitution.net...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Ya.. but the thing is.. what if the "powers that be" DO think the Bible means something.. and the fact that it wasn't used gets them off the hook in their minds to faithfully follow the constitution.. (Like I said before)

I personally am not offended at all that he didn't use a Bible.. I agree with you. But what if they do think it means something.

Then that would mean that the 'powers that be' are not the shiniest apples on the tree.

You claim to not care that he didn't use the bible, but it seems you're trying to make other people believe there's something special enough about the bible that the 'powers that be' fear it enough to make sure Obama didn't use it when he took the oath a second time.

There are two flaws in your logic. 1)This assumption must be saying that he purposely flubbed the first oath, the one with his hand on the bible, to take the second one without his hand on the bible. 2)The 'powers that be' want people under mind control and want people to fear and respect the bible but they themselves do not fear or respect anything about that book. In order for this to be their doing, they would have to believe the snake oil they're selling, which they do not.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
Then that would mean that the 'powers that be' are not the shiniest apples on the tree.

You claim to not care that he didn't use the bible, but it seems you're trying to make other people believe there's something special enough about the bible that the 'powers that be' fear it enough to make sure Obama didn't use it when he took the oath a second time.

There are two flaws in your logic. 1)This assumption must be saying that he purposely flubbed the first oath, the one with his hand on the bible, to take the second one without his hand on the bible. 2)The 'powers that be' want people under mind control and want people to fear and respect the bible but they themselves do not fear or respect anything about that book. In order for this to be their doing, they would have to believe the snake oil they're selling, which they do not.


Ok.. lets assume that the current people running things are freemasons. What do the freemasons believe. A quick search brings this up:

"Albert Pike, a highly revered 33rd degree Mason, issued this statement on July 14, 1889 to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World: "That which we must say to the crowd is: We worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees: The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine." -Albert Pike

Des Griffin quotes Lady Queensborough's book, "Occult Theocrasy," that records Albert Pike's own words: "Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay (Jehovah) is also God. For the eternal Law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black. For the Absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue and the brake to the locomotive. The doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic Religion 'is the belief in Lucifer,' the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil." (La Femme et L' enfant dans La Frac-Maconnerie Universelle, by A.C. De La Rive, pg. 588, and Occult Theocrasy, by Lady Queensborough, pg. 220,221) Quoted from Fourth Reich of the Rich, Griffin, pg. 70,71"

So from that and a bunch of other sources you can see that they at least believe that the traditional God "Jehovah" exists, although they worship Lucifer.. (not necessarily the devil... Pike actually claimed that Jehovah is evil and Lucifer is Good.) All that would make sense of why they wouldn't want the new president to swear by the bible, because the bible represents 1) a real God and if the God is real and they swear by him and then break that promise there could be a repercussion if they broke that promise and 2) it's not the God they worship.

Notice in the picture of the second swearing in:



His hand is actually on one of oldest freemasons in the US.. Thats just a coincidence though......... right?






[edit on 25-1-2009 by danman23]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by danman23


His hand is actually on one of oldest freemasons in the US.. Thats just a coincidence though......... right?

So now you're saying that the 'powers that be' are in fact the freemasons and their belief is anti-bible which is to be considered 'evil' because the bible is 'good'.

I don't believe in symbology.

I believe there's good and bad in the world. I believe there's greed and generosity in the world. There's selfishness and selflessness and I believe there are people in the world taking advantage of/keeping people in, poverty and misery.

The 'powers that be' keep their money invested in both the 'holy'-book and the anti-'holy' book to make sure that when there's a polar shift, they always come out on top. In other words, they support both the freemasons and the christians and whoever else is increasing in size on the planet. They don't really care for any of them. They don't believe one is 'good' and one is 'evil' because they know who the real evil is, the real evil is them and their greed and they want to keep everyone else blindly looking at each other as the enemy so no one sees them for who they are. My whole point is, the 'powers that be' didn't set this up, it's meaningless.



[edit on 26-1-2009 by mmariebored]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
So now you're saying that the 'powers that be' are in fact the freemasons and their belief is anti-bible which is to be considered 'evil' because the bible is 'good'.

I don't believe in symbology.


I didn't say IN FACT... I actually said "Ok.. lets assume that the current people running things are freemasons."

The fact that you don't believe in symbology doesn't mean they don't. (if symbology means what I think you mean) and that's the point. The rest of your post is very important and interesting though.. Could you please send me some references to what you are referring to. I am interested in learning what is actually going on here.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
being sworn in on the bible is an insult to all the US people who don't believe in god , believe in buddah, hindu, or any other or non believe.. is racist and discrimination against all above ect.
the president has to be neutral and repressent every citizen being sworn in on a bible makes this impossible.
So he has to be sworn in on the constitution of the USA and on the people he is going to serve.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkLuitzen
 


You didn't read any of the the thread did you?? haha..



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MarkLuitzen
 


I agree with you. The whole bible thing is getting insane. It means NOTHING. The only reason it's a problem is because the Christian fanatics have pushed their beliefs into EVERYTHING and deny the fact that they don't control the world and that we have a separation of church and state.

I wouldn't say that a president being sworn in on the bible is necessarily INSULTING...I don't really care either way. I'm more insulted by the fact that a large part of the Christian community is trying to say that the president SHOULD.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I have a question: what if your're an atheist? What do you swear on? And forget being the President, just as a regular person, swearing for example in court, to tell the truth....are you supposed to tell them that you're an atheist?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join