- Jan. 23, 2009 · RevisionistHistory.org
- "For a couple of smooth-talking constitutional experts,
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President-elect Barack Obama sure
had a hard time getting through the constitutional oath of office...The
chief justice seemed to say 'to' rather than 'of,' but that was not the
main problem. The main problem was that the word 'faithfully' had floated
upstream...Mr. Obama seemed to realize this, pausing quizzically after
saying 'that I will execute '
- "The chief justice gave it another go, getting closer
but still not quite right: "faithfully the office of president of
the United States." This time, he omitted the word 'execute.' Mr.
Obama now repeated the chief justice's initial error of putting 'faithfully'
at the end of the phrase. Starting where he had abruptly paused, he said:
'the office of the president of the United States faithfully." ("I
Do Solemnly Swear(Line, Please?," NY Times, Jan. 20, 2009)
- Yes, indeed these two "smooth-talking constitutional
experts" couldn't manage to recite the brief oath as it was written.
This was largely Chief Justice Roberts' fault. We can believe that this
flub was due to human fallibility and that may very well be the case, or
we can also wonder whether the very intelligent Chief Justice deliberately
mishandled the oath so that it would be administered a second time, under
very different circumstances.
- Here's how the media reported the second rite: ...After
a day's worth of chatter over whether the president had been properly sworn
into office...(i)n 25 seconds, President Obama became president again. Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administered the oath to Mr. Obama on Wednesday
evening, one day after the two men stumbled over each other's words during
the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol. For their do-over, the two
men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding
that was not announced until it was completed successfully...Only hours
after aides told reporters there was no reason to administer the oath again,
they concluded it was easier to do it on the first day, rather than have
someone challenge the legitimacy of his presidency...Mr. Obama raised his
right hand and did not use a Bible....only nine people witnessed the do-over.
There were four aides, four reporters and a White House photographer..."
(NY Times, Jan. 22, 2009).
- This second-time-around doppelganger oath was the real
oath, since the flawed first one, done in the sight of millions and upon
the Bible of assassinated President Abraham Lincoln was a "challenge
(to) the legitimacy of his presidency..."
- There was no Bible the second time and with Obama having
been compared to John F. Kennedy during the campaign, and with all of the
macabre parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln (Lincoln was killed in Ford's
theatre, Kennedy was killed in a Ford automobile; Lincoln's secretary was
named Kennedy, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln; Lincoln and Kennedy
were both succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson, etc.), I'm not sure
that if I were Barack Obama I would have wanted to step into the middle
of such a highly charged symbol palimpsest -- unless of course the first
inaugural oath-taking was little more more than shadow-play.
- What appears to be the authentic inauguration took place
in a basement, and was an elite rather than a populist rite, with just
nine witnesses. It occurred in former President Franklin Roosevelt's secretive,
war-era "map room." Before FDR, under presidents from Chester
Arthur through Wilson and Coolidge, it was reputedly used to play the game
- The omission of the Bible is not invalidating since the
father of our country did not use one at his inauguration and Lyndon Johnson,
on the plane to Washington after's Kennedy's killing, used a Roman Catholic
mass book ("missal"), rather than a Bible. Hence, the absence
of a Bible per se does not invalidate the oath, but the peek-a-boo nature
of the inaugural Bible may be deliberate, in that its momentous presence
at the botched inauguration is all the more glaring in its inexplicable
absence at the real inauguration.
- If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by
this apparently deliberate omission?
- Another equally striking aspect of the second oath are
the photographs of the ceremony, which feature the looming presence of
a vintage portrait above the mantle on the wall behind the president and
the chief justice.
- The oath is a ritual and this ritual has an icon hovering
over it, as if by way of spiritual benediction and patronage. As of this
writing, in all the prominent photos of the second oath which this writer
has seen, no caption has been provided by the establishment media that
identifies the enigmatic man in the portrait. Yet, symbolically, he is
the "genius loci," the presiding spirit of the authentic inaugural
ceremony of Barack Obama as President. Like the omission of the Bible after
so much was made of its presence at the first oath-taking, the omission
of any identification of the figure in the painting at the second oath-taking
would seem to be significant.
- Let us recall that the second oath was performed in secret:
"...the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m.
for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed..."
- In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly
substituted for the One True God. This false god is identified in the masonic
lodges as "the Great Architect."
- The mysterious man in the portrait who silently presides
over the authentic inauguration of Barack Obama as Commander and Chief,
is Benjamin Latrobe, the great architect of the U.S. Capitol.
- Copyright 2009 · All Rights Reserved
- Michael Hoffman's latest book is "Judaism Discovered,"
now in its second printing; available from
- The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History
and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
- 24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau:
- http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html Subscribe: