Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Obama Retakes Oath of Office

President Obama has retaken his oath of office after the flubbed delivery seen at the video:

Obama and Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts had both seemingly stumbled over the 35-word oath during Obama's swearing-in as president on Tuesday, leading some to question whether he had properly committed the Constitutionally-mandated speech act that made him president of the United States.

A president is required by the Constitution to say: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

At the inaugural, Roberts had mixed up the words, saying instead: "...that I will execute the office to President of the United States faithfully..."

And so, at 7:35 p.m. today, according to the White House pool report, Roberts re-administered the oath in the Map Room of the White House.

"We decided it was so much fun -- " the first time, Obama joked while sitting on a couch.

Obama stood and walked over to make small talk with a reporter as Roberts donned his black robe.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" Roberts asked.

"I am, and we're going to do it very slowly," Obama replied.

Obama raised his right hand, leaving his left at his side.

The private swearing-in ceremony, sans Bible, took 25 seconds.

After a flawless recitation, Roberts smiled and said, "Congratulations,
again."

"Thank you, sir," Obama replied, to a smattering of applause.
Now, who messed up the oath? Watching the video it looks like Obama was pre-ejaculatory.

Initial reports have Obama jumping ahead of Roberts, for example:

Separated by a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln at his first inaugural, Roberts asked Obama: "Are you prepared to take the oath senator?"Obama indicated he was, and Roberts started reciting - and Obama repeating - the 35-word oath that is prescribed by the Constitution.

But at one point early on, Obama paused, as if grasping for the next words. Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track.
Later news stories reported Justice Roberts as having flubbed, for example, "Obama, Chief Justice Roberts Stumble in Recitation of Presidential Oath."

In watching the video above - which is provided by the secular-left news outlet and Obama propaganda organ - it's looks like Obama jumped the gun. Roberts did misstate the "faithfully execute" portion, but the iteration could have begun with Obama's halting first attempt to recite "I so solemly swear..."?

28 comments:

JBW said...

Obama jumped the gun and drew Roberts offsides. 5 yards, repeat first down. 15 yard completion, new first down.

Donald Douglas said...

Perhaps, JBW ... interesting how the media story are jumping around too.

JBW said...

Some people will try to spin anything to their advantage Don, be they right or left. This time it's the left; Obama jumped the gun.

Still, hard to imagine being a bit nervous smashing a huge section of the color barrier on an international stage whilest simultaneously becoming the most powerful man on the planet, huh? Nervous Nelly.

Grace Explosion said...

Ah, well, it was perjury... and the Good Lord above knew that Obama will not faithfully preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is good that the Good Lord didn't allow the destruction of the Constitution to occur "smoothly"... as both the Chief Supreme Court Justice, and "the Pretender" to the office of POTUS were rendered incapable of speech by our Sovereign Lord.

Well, he's not even proven his US citizenship, and the fact is that he's going to move to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America - and the Supreme Court destroyed the Constitution by not executing it's duty to cause Obama to prove his US citizenship at the behest of the people in a court of law.

This nation no longer exists Constitutionally, and I thank the Lord that He didn't allow that travesty to be executed "without a hitch" and caused them to stumble over those words.

On to the next nation.

Grace.

JBW said...

...but the right does eventually have their say as well. She's been nothing but a Negative Nancy these last few days, huh? And before you ask, yes: I have many more alliterative nicknames in my back pocket.

Grace Explosion said...

It's getting so fun and exciting now. It's over. The old nation is dead. When I saw my high school guidance counsellor some years later, she asked me, "Laura, have you gotten your phd??" ha ha ha. lol They always looked at me - and thought I was destined to do something great, world changing, "over the top", and incredible. I never told them at school that I was in hot pursuit of my lifetime goal of unification of the body of Christ via an anointing of sufficient clarity and power relative grace (at the 100% miraculous level) to initiate the full stature move of the Spirit. (I didn't think they'd understand.)

But, look!! It's gotten even more exciting!! I'm going to birth a new nation.

This is just more fun than I could have imagined. Everyone has always looked at me and imagined I was destined to do something incredible.

I'm starting to have fun now with it. The old nation is behind me. I've watched it die. Moving forward in resurrection power. What a destiny!! Oh poor JBW, I hope you aren't destined for this old nation when the new one will be soooooo much better. :) It's so symbollic. It's so spiritual of the Lord. I'm seeing the beauty of the plan. It's just so "Jesus" (the real One). :)

Grace.

JBW said...

There's the ebullient Grace we all know and ridicule! Don't get too excited too fast about the end times though; it's embarrassing when your soul shoots out too early: premature evacuation.

Average American said...

I wonder if everything he has done or signed prior to 7:35 was done over. If the first swearing in was deemed improper, then nothing he has done so far is legal. What a way to start the next 4 years. Way to go asshole!

Grace Explosion said...

Oh... I just reread and "caught that". No Bible. Ha!! He didn't swear the oath with his 666 beast hand on the Holy Word.

You see, this was fate and destiny and a sign to all the world.

The beast has arisen.

666

No Bible.

That was not coincidence. That was God. It has much significant meaning. Think about it. God is SOVEREIGN... and they were barred by God from speaking those words with Obama's hand on the Bible.

He, Obama, was forbidden. Such blasphemy.

Our God reigns. Jesus is Lord.

(I'm sure Lincoln in glory was relieved... and VINDICATED that this beast is nothing like Lincoln.)

The oath, the perjury, was rendered void by God's Holy Word. Hallelujah!! Such signs. What rejoicing there shall be among the righteous when the POTUS of the new nation is sworn in with his/her hand on the Bible - and the Word in his/her HEART! :)

Grace Explosion said...

JBW,

Fear not for my soul. It's headed in the right direction... UP, UP, UP and AWAY!! (Right on time in the Lord's time, btw.) And yours??

;)

Donald Douglas said...

JBW: Just so you know, I'm not supporting a "new nation" or anything. Grace's opinions are her own (that's for Tim too).

Trashman said...

It all boils down to the fact the muslim messiah didn't take to oath correctly. Now he doesn't have to protect our country.

JBW said...

I think you're wrong Don, not crazy.

Ah Trashman, another of those classy right wingers I hear so much about on this site. You sound smart.

Grace, I have no way of knowing if I even have a soul but I'll sell it to you for fifty bucks. From what I hear, that's a steal.

Philippe Ohlund said...

Grace, I know you are convinced that Obama is the Antichrist.

Antichrist is in fact around the corner, but we do not know yet who he is.

Do not forget that personal religious erroneous reflections were the main reasons, which resulted in some of President Bush's damaging decisions, and which made him impopular.

President Bush assumed the then-popular idea, that was prevalent around 9/11, that Saddam Hussein actually was THE Antichrist.

But before the Temple is built in Jerusalem, and the Antichrist proclaims himself God in the Temple, see 2 Thessalonians 2:4, we cannot say who the 666-beast is.

Some people said Yasser Arafat was the Antichrist, you suggest it is President Obama, Elijah the Tishbite says the Antichrist is Prince Charles of Wales.

But I think it is someone else, compare with Daniel 7:20.

It is anyway too early to say with any certainty who the Antichrist might be.

But rest assured that it is someone extremely smart, who has waited for half a million years for his moment, and who deceived Adam and Eve, see Revelation 12:9.

cracker said...

Professor,

do you have students in your class debating the "beast"? thingy also.

I'm new to it.

What do we do when we meet it?

is there more than one?

Do we kill it?

If we kill the wrong one by accident, is that ok?

Does a real beast point fingers at others and say "look over there....its the beast!"?

Grace?, Phil?, Professor?

Or is this the wrong blog for this type of question?

mberenis said...

This is a good blog, thanks for sharing.



***************************
$$Win Cash in 60 Seconds$$

***************************

Tim said...

cracker: LOL x 666!

Righty64 said...

Sorry, but they BOTH got excited in the moment of a historic event. Good Lord, this is a real non-issue. What did we do before our fossil media tried to explain everything for us? Please, let is move on this one!

repsac3 said...

At the risk of sounding like just another sycophant here (albeit for someone other than our fair host),

Great comment, Righty64!!

I couldn't agree more...

Philippe Ohlund said...

Cracker, an experiment in 1943, during WWII, turned very wrong, and created an enormous amount of energy, which got stuck in the space time domain.

This created a rift, a hole, in the space time area - the Bottomless Pit.

Now a terrible creature - the King of the Bottomless Pit - is getting through and will thrash our entire Planet, see Revelation 9:11.

The hole - the Bottomless Pit - that bad, dangerous, and serious rift, in the space time dimension, will be repaired, see Revelation 20:1 - 3.

But how well can we repair it?

repsac3 said...

Donald: JBW: Just so you know, I'm not supporting a "new nation" or anything. Grace's opinions are her own (that's for Tim too).

I believe you, Donald... Now if you'd only grant folks on the left the same courtesy, and not tar us with that same kinda guilt by association, either...
Aires'/Wright's/ANSWER's opinions are their own, too, and not supported by every liberal/progressive/Democrat/"nihilist" with which they have ever rubbed shoulders, either...

While bad ideas & opinions like Grace's or Wright's are communicable diseases--others can "catch" and propagate them after being exposed--the education level and moral character of Americans left and right inoculate us, and thus make the vast majority of Americans resistant to infection by occasional exposure to the carriers among us.

JBW said...

Philippe: I like you, dude. You seem like a reasonable fellow until you start getting all religious on us. That said: really!? It was a mediocre movie, but this is all you've got? Space-time continuum holes created by the US military?

I love discussions of theoretical physics and I don't want to relegate you to the same file as Grace but come on, guy: give me something better to work with here. You're embarrassing your continent.

Reppy, you're preaching truth, dude. I respect Don but he routinely unfairly desecrates your character on this site. I dare say that his partisan emotions have gotten the better of him in the past.

Philippe Ohlund said...

I like your clear analyzis too, JBW.

I think Grace is a religious person, who tries to also be reasonable, but nevertheless stays religious, but I make no judgments.

It is true that I am more of a non-religious reasonable person, who found what I did not ask for or searched for.

I feel sorry if I make you feel embarassed, JBW, this was not my intention.

As you hint you are probably right that I appear to be both unreasonable and unreligious in the eyes of many people.

But it is important to make the light shine forth.

But what use do we have for the light, if the world is not first plunged into utter darkness and utter desolation so that everyone clearly can see the light?

cracker said...

Thanks for the clarity Mr. Ohlund!

I'm from the Pacific North West here in the US.

I kept seeing "the beast" as a kinda Bigfoot character, very old but with special powers. High-powered olfactory and super night vision.

Kind of a ninja, type too.

Nonetheless, thank you.

JBW said...

I didn't say that you embarrassed me Philippe but rather your continent. Some friendly advice: just stick to facts in the future and myself and others will take what you say more seriously.

repsac3 said...

I have to say, I dig Phillipe just as he is... The semi- & non- sequiturs he posts bring much joy to this blog. (Think about it... Practically every time we reach bipartisan agreement here, it is due to something mentioned in one of Phillipe's comments... Beer, hats, ...)

Sure, he might post several paragraphs about hula hoops or his first automobile while we're all debating whether the war on terror created a war on personal privacy or something, but that's just part of his charm.

Besides, he genuinely seems to be a happy guy, and pleasant to all he encounters here, whatever their politics or demeanor... ...even toward him. (In fact, he may altogether be the nicest person to ever post on this blog...)

Buy that man a beer... (...& get him a hat, too. 8>)

Tim said...

Philippe is the nicest person here, no doubt. A bit on the whacky Christian side, but those are some of my favorite people...

And while I know Donald is a nice person on the inside, sometimes his words betray his personage. It is about how we say things. Grace, for all her bluster, is probably much more mellow in person. At least I hope so!

And as for humor, why is it the lefties can laugh so much easier? Maybe that is a nihilist trait? When I think of political humor, I can't really think of any right wing comedians worth a laugh. Maybe Limbaugh when he was high on oxycontin and losing his hearing.

repsac3 said...

I've thought about that too, Tim. It's the facelessness of the internet. There are plenty of people here (& all over the blogs) who forget that there are real people represented by those screen names & avatars. (Sometimes, I am one of them.) I'm certain that a portion of the things we say--& the way we say them, absolutely--wouldn't pass our lips in the real world.

(I first realized this way back in my AOL chat room days in the early to mid 90s. Guys (& girls) would say things to each other in those rooms they (hopefully) wouldn't dream of saying in person. To a lesser extent, the same goes here... Only here, mercifully, the subject doesn't revolve around what we'd like to do to each other sexually. As weird as it's ever gotten, the words "wanna go private" have never appeared on this blog--till now, anyway. May it never happen again.)

Donald & Grace are two great examples. They simply cannot be the same kinda people, offline & in person.

But then, you'd know that better than I, from what I'm given to understand. (It took me a few messages to figure out that there really is some kind of extended family between you two. I'm still quite surprised.) I cannot imagine being in the same room watchin' a game or sharing a meal, given some of the conversations that go on here... Either the divisive subjects--politics, religion--don't come up in person--different--or the participants are treated with far more respect, and don't result in anyone being called a "nihilist socialist Stalinist denialist crackpot--with all due respect"--again, different. Were it me rather than you, I would find it kinda awkward, even with the likely "online/offline" changes in tone between us. But then, I'd be coming from "online" to "offline." I'd guess it's different when you know each other in person, first.

The real question is, who are we really; the one on the blogs, the one at the barbeque, or someone in between? And a related question... Is all this faceless internet chat making us less respectful to others in person? Sometimes, I wonder...