Obama Swears Twice–AGAIN!

12 Dec

President Barack Obama takes the oath of offic...

President Barack Obama takes the oath of office during the 56th Presidential Inauguration Ceremony, Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When President Obama took his first public inauguration oath in A.D. 2009, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts “accidentally” misread the words of the oath.  Later, Obama took the oath a second time in private with the correct words.

Conspiracy theorists were incensed.  They claimed that, clearly, this was evidence that Obama was taking one oath in public and another in private and that he was therefore occupying two offices, or maybe only the “private” presidency, or maybe . . . .

After a while the two-oath “conspiracy theory” of A.D.2009 disappeared under the tsunami of ongoing news.

But guess what?  The Associated Press reports today that Obama will again take two oaths of office:  one in private and another in public.

The government has an excuse:  “He’s planning a private oath at the White House on Jan. 20, when the Constitution requires that his second term begin. But since presidential inaugurations are not traditionally on Sundays, his public swearing-in is scheduled Jan. 21.”

The excuse seems plausible.  The show must go on.  For the sake of “show biz” (the Inauguration Ceremony) Obama will take a second oath so all the peons can see him do so on January 21st, even though he “actually” took the oath on the 20th. .

But I am freakin’ amazed.  Again, Obama is taking two oaths of office–one in private; one in public; one on each of two separate days.  I’d very much like to see the exact words taken in his “private” oath of office.



Posted by on December 12, 2012 in 2012 Election, Conspiracy theories, Oath, Obama


Tags: , ,

18 responses to “Obama Swears Twice–AGAIN!

  1. Steve

    December 12, 2012 at 4:20 PM

    This is not meant as a conspiracy theory comment. , but just in my very own opinion. By what my gut tells me is that he takes one oath on the Bible in fron of the public as he did on Lincoln’s Bible the first time. Then he does his private oath on the Koran…so the “public” wil not be outraged at such a “treasonous” act. Just my opinion, never heard anybody else bring this up before.

  2. Jim

    December 12, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    The electoral college will satisfy the President of the U S of A office. The President of the U S of A will satisfy the President of the United States with the following , Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘‘ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.’’

    What you won’t see is the taking the Article VI oath and the duties of the same

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
    State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of
    the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
    religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
    United States.

  3. Jim

    December 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM

    The CIA factbook will confirm the two offices.

  4. Mike

    December 13, 2012 at 12:42 AM

    Thanks again for a truthful look at contemporary society. I have read your posts for a couple of years learning much and diggin the intelligence of you and your followers. After reading and researching much of what you present I have come to a sad, but seemingly truthful conclusion.

    The Republic we were taught to believe in has been lost since the death of President Kennedy, whom I believe was the last hope of The United States of America. Our current country is not what I was taught it to be and I don’t really see a way for us to have the Republic our founders created. History shows we have battled four central banks into submission but this current one has us by our greed and avarice. Until we change our minds and follow our hears, I think we are living in the last days of this great experiment.

    I value your efforts and hope I am wrong.

    In Peace and Liberty~

  5. BigDwane

    December 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM

    As with “Steve” I have wondered about the second oath being sworn or affirmed to on the Koran. The news media made a big deal about the one in President Jefferson’s library. What they did NOT mention was it most probably was used for knowlefge of the Muslim religion and study by Jefferson so he could understand what he was dealing with. Does the “…shores of Tripoli.” ring a bell? Just my thoughts.

  6. shupec

    December 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

    My ‘gut’ tells me that he is both ‘public’ and ‘private’ and to be ‘complete’ must act accordingly. The real question or more like ‘demand’, should be – “Let us SEE *both* Oaths” and all other relevant Oaths or Promises…

    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM

      To: shupec,
      It would not make any difference IF you or I or everyone did see both oaths because WE are not UNITED to do anything about anything.

  7. Lex Mercatoria

    December 13, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    Their office of president was always part of a seperate corporation, not our lawful federal-level gov’t which has never existed. It matters not what oath their presidents take.

    We shouldn’t focus so much on what the fictional world is doing as what we people are doing, as so much of what they do is a distraction, entertainment for the masses and little to do with what’s going on.

    • flatwood

      December 15, 2012 at 11:45 AM

      Re:Their office of president was always part of a seperate corporation…
      What is your source of info. about this statement?

    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      Lex,why don’t you answer my question?

      • Lex Mercatoria

        February 6, 2014 at 9:07 PM

        I apologize for this late reply, as I don’t keep up with my posts here as well as I should.

        The oaths those presidents take isn’t the one they are supposed to take, and it seems to have been this way since George Washington took his sham oath before he or anyone was capable of assuming that office of president.

        The founding fathers weren’t completely forthcoming as to what they were up to. Prominent lawyer (not attorney!) Lysander Spooner figured things out, albeit from a different perspective, in his book “No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority.”

  8. Jerry Lee

    December 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM

    Flatwood and Lex:

    I made mention earlier that the Constitution ‘Does Not Repeat’ its self. Yes the Governments have all been Corporations from before the Colonies became states. IT is just how those Corporations conducts there’s business, per Charter, ie Constitution[s].

    With this stated if one reads those Articles of charter of 1781, that ordained and establish the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the de jure people’s government it is those Oath of Offices that BOUND those citizen to the people.

    It was not until the Reconstruction Acts after the War of Northern aggression that establishes a ‘New Government’. It is here one will find the new Military democracy…Dictatorship.
    The One Nation or fascist state was now on the move at a snails pace as not to alarm the people of their demise.

    I will get to my point, the 14th amendment to the National Constitution would set up all de facto offices and its employees including the ‘States’ right on down to all local entities. As I said the Constitution does not repeat its self. It is this amendment in their constitution they become principals of foreign corporation not beholding to the people but persons ie CORPORATIONS.

    Congress as always exempts themselves of their own policies not law. This is found in Section 3, last sentence…But Congress may by a vote or 2/3 or each house, remove such disability.

    In other word the Expatriate from the de facto government, give up their US citizenship; they are no longer a Debtor U S citizen/person.
    At which time Sec 4 of the 14th amendment is inapplicable to them. They all become ‘Overseers” of the chattel property the Resident/subject of the Plantation that U S citizen.

    Now if one put his think’n hat on Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

    This part is easy this 14th amendment is only applicable in the United States D.C., its Territories and possessions.
    § ** Title 5>Part III> Subpart A> Chapter 29> Subchapter I> sec 2905
    2905. Oath; renewal
    1) An employee of an Executive agency or an individual employed by the>>government of the District of Columbia<>change in status< PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 219 Officers and employees acting as agents of foreign principals (a) Whoever, being a public official, is or acts as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 or a lobbyist required to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 in connection with the representation of a foreign entity, as defined in section 3(6) of that Act shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
    (c) For the purpose of this section public official means ****MEMBER OF CONGRESS****, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government. Now you know why we get no representation Congress they ***WORK AS AGENTS*** OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS ie International Bankers

    4) , Page 2 #90 on the list you will notice it is a Private company. search=united+states+district+court· Company
    Government Of District Of Columbia
    441 4th Street Nw # 700s Washington, DC 20001-2714 map Website: View Details Phone: (202) 727-1000
    About Government Of District Of Columbia
    Is this your company?
    Claim This Profile Government Of District Of Columbia in Washington, DC is a private company categorized under Executive Search Consultants.
    Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures. Companies like Government Of District Of Columbia usually offer:
    Executive Placement Services. Government Of District Of Columbia Business Information Location Type Headquarters Annual Sales (Estimated) Information not found Employees (Estimated) 34,600 At this location 2,500 SIC Code View Details
    NAICS Code 561312, Products, Services and Brands Information not found State of Incorporation Information not found
    Years in Business 220
    Would Executive Placement Services be the Office of the ‘President”?

    Al has also made mention of Manta and Dunn Bradstreet to confirm all of the de facto govco offices are but Private companies.
    So is Obama taking his oath[s] to both governments de jure/ de facto? As there can be no de facto office without a true de jure office…U.S. Supreme Court NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).
    Has this been done in secret before Obama?

    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 9:46 PM

      Jerry Lee,

      @ “With this stated if one reads those Articles of charter of 1781, that ordained and establish the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches ”

      Branches? What happened to/with the DEPARTMENTS?

      @The One Nation or fascist state was now on the move at a snails pace as not to alarm the people of their demise.

      This I understand & agree with 100%.

      @ This part is easy this 14th amendment is only applicable in the United States D.C., its Territories and possessions.

      I don’t know for certain/sure, what you mean, but this I do know.Today, ALL the “land area” IS FEDERAL REGIONAL VENUE, identified by Zip Code.

      @ Al has also made mention of Manta and Dunn Bradstreet to confirm all of the de facto govco offices are but Private companies.

      Big deal. How has this made any difference?

      @NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886).

      I will shepardize this case & see if has been overturned.

      • Adask

        December 20, 2012 at 2:34 AM and Dunn & Bradstreet make a difference in this regard: They provide from credible sources within the “system” that some of the allegations and theories advanced on blogs like this one–no matter how bizarre and incredible they seem–may actually have merit. Manta and D&B offer concrete evidence that our seemingly fantastic theories may be at least partially correct. Such evidence helps people have the confidence they may need to confront the system. Knowing there is some validity to our notions is necessary before those notions can gain traction and begin to have effect.

      • Jerry Lee

        December 20, 2012 at 7:14 PM

        Branches or Departments?

        I will gave you my take on these words starting with Branch[es].
        From what I have derived from Bouvier’s 1856, Black’s 4h and Noah Webster 1828 American Dictionary the theme seems to relates to plants/people and things.

        Branch: an offshoot from a trunk, common stock, and extensions, subdivision Or Department. Part of a body, a system, a arm, extension from a main body, a linage of a family descent from a common ancestor, root or stock.

        Department: a branch or division of a business charged with a specific class of duties.
        Department is also meant the division of authority.
        The United States has been divided into military departments, including certain portions of the country.

        From the above I believe several arguments may be brought forth, but in the end it must be which application we use in legal terms, which will determine their effects. Since we are talking about a fictional corporation and its officers [actors].

        It appears that to me that departments are subsets of branches, that the delegation of
        obligations, duties and limitations are passed on to a specific division @department.

        This is all find and well if the Corporation is confined to its charter. Of course this would be a perfect world wouldn’t it?

        Now comes this…
        The United States has been divided into military departments, including certain portions of the country, this is from Bouvier’s 1856. This is the game changer I do believe, As I have stated Military rule has been imposed upon the American people since Abe’s War.
        Federal Reserve Notes are Military script see General Orders 100.

        With the 1933 Bankruptcy and the start of the Administrative law and the Act of 1946 it became clear that Department ie agencies were now operating in a lawless ‘State” outside the Law of the Land, the federal constitution or with-OUTLAW.
        No longer under the so-called Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches it became a stand-alone renegade Branch or source Public Policy/Military rule.
        FDR said these Administrative Departments were the headless
        “Branch” of government not Bound by the chains of the people’s charter.

        Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty
        Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity, or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution of the United States, to wit:
        Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of the American Bar Association’s special committee on administrative *153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal, 574, 589, says: ‘* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law * * *.’ The court has recognized the principle with respect to the industrial insurance act that controversies arising under it are controlled by “special statutory proceedings exercised in derogation of, or not according to, the course of the common law.” (Italics ours.) Nafus v. Department of Labor and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878. [Emphasis added]
        This is also held in the adjudged decision of State ex rel Nielson et al. v. Lindstrom, 191 P.2d 1009, 1015 (1948).

        Just like the English language it is ever evolving does one word fit all? Just depends on who words we are using.

        Flatwood your statement on Private companies, Big Deal…

        I believe what you fail to understand the word ‘private’
        Since I have failed to punch the time clock at GM today and was not on the line when it started ‘they’ were going to write me up, only problem, I don’t work for GM. So I really could care less has no effect on me its private I have no nexus to connect me to ‘them’.

        The United States is a Foreign Corporation; governments have always been a corporation it is just who is the creator of that corporate charter that sets its ‘Rules, Regulations, Code and Policies’.

        We the people have no lawful money [Art I, Section 10] to carry on ‘Intercourse’ instead giving that privilege to a private foreign corporation aka Federal Reserve.

        We use their ‘Product’ FRN’s that come with all kind of strings attached, Private [company] municipal international law, UCC a copyrighted commercial law which now is the law of the land.
        There are too many way to get sucked into this black hole and one of the easy ways is to contract and claim you are that 14th corporate commercial citizen, person/subject to its jurisdiction. It is their law you are just ignorant of the facts, which is your road to feudal law.

        Under International law a ‘country’ looses it sovereignty when it ceases to own and creates and own its ‘money’.

        Next…I don’t know for certain/sure, what you mean, but this I do know. Today, ALL the “land area” IS FEDERAL REGIONAL VENUE, identified by Zip Code.
        Do you know the difference between fiction and reality?

        Your perception of what is and isn’t has more then likely been perverted by your social upbringing, as we all have been endocrine to the ‘system’ even our parents have played their part.
        ‘’Land area” anything in that in caption by “ “ means there is more then what is present.
        So let me add my take on “land area”, A maxim of law states two things cannot occupy the same space at one time. Al has written in length on this subject ‘this State’ which I have made comments also. Even the Federal Constitution makes mention of this it being a common law instrument. Article IV, Section 3 Clause I to wit…. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state…

        Now to ‘State” Codes, Revised or otherwise here are just a few.

        California Revenue Code:
        11205. “In this State” or “in the State” means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

        Texas Penal code: Sec. 1.04. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

        (d) This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.

        Oregon laws 1973, chapter 836, page 2708, Section 13 (O.R.S. 131.205)

        “this state” “means the land and water and the air space>> ABOVE <<the land and water with respect to which the State of Oregon has legislative jurisdiction”.

        Washington: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.04.200 found at:
        "In this state" or "within this state" includes all federal areas lying within the exterior boundaries of the state.

        Texas Penal code: Sec. 1.04. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

        (d) This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water over which this state has power to define offenses.

        Arizona Basic Legal Definitions 13-108: Territorial applicability
        C. This state includes the land and water and the air space above the land and water.

        4 U.S.C.S…Sec.110 (e). The term “Federal area” means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.
        Or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State
        It is this Fictional overlay within the exterior boundaries that covers the remainder of the real lands mass presumably makes Federal jurisdiction complete. Thus de jure/de facto the fiction cannot be without the real.

        You should read the allegory of Wizard of Oz.

  9. Flatwood

    December 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM

    Re: “Knowing there is some validity to our notions is necessary before those notions can gain traction and begin to have effect.”

    “To have effect?” Where do you/we go today to petition for a redress of greivance & our petitions will be honored & given effect to & for our relief? If someone starts beating you to a pulp & decides to quit before you are completely destroyed, in every way, is that a win for you or me?

    • Adask

      December 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

      Politics is a process, not an event. You vote for a particular party or idea in this years election to create legitimacy for that idea in the 2014 or 2016 election. We plant seeds now to harvest years later. We can’t expect that seeds planted this morning will be harvested this afternoon. It took America decades, perhaps generations, to arrive at the current state of affairs. It’ll likewise take some considerable time to reverse the current trend and put us back on track.

      Whether the current system will survive that long remains to be seen. The whole damn thing could blow up at any moment. But if it does blow up, what will follow? Part of my motivation is to help people understand some of the principles that we once honored and might want to restore in the event of a serious collapse. The “traction” I’m talking about is not only in this “state of affairs” but perhaps also in the next.

  10. Big M

    April 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM

    First, the “oath” in Article II of the CONstitution talks about the “Constitution OF the United States,” not the “Constitution FOR the United States OF AMERICA.”

    Second, unless the Criminal-in-Chief, or anybody else, signs a legal document containing the exact words of the “oath,” agreeing to be lawfully bound by and to actually execute the terms of the “oath,” it is completely meaningless.

    I can’t believe that people still swallow the garbage that just because somebody repeats some mumbo-jumbo recited to them by somebody who they may never have met before, with one hand raised and the other on a book that contains, shall we say, stories open to dispute, that they are turned into somebody who has authority to pass and/or execute bogus “laws” on living men and women. Since all governments are, in fact, corporations, they are legal fictions, and thus their “laws” cannot be applied to men or women, unless they CONSENT in some manner. This is why none of their “laws” EVER mention a MAN or a WOMAN, and instead go out of their way to use terms that only apply to legal fictions, artificial entities or straw PERSONS. If their “laws” could be lawfully enforced against a MAN or WOMAN, they why wouldn’t they use those terms?

    And why do they, in fact, go out of their way to never title these “laws” as LAWS? Why do they ALWAYS title them as a bill, resolution, code, statute, regulation, etc.? Is it because of the language in the CONstitution? You know, where it says that if a bill passes both houses of CONgress, and is signed by the Criminal-in-Chief, “shall . . . become a law?” What kind of baloney is this? The “law” still says that it is a bill, code, etc. Just because somebody writes on a piece of parchment that “if X is signed, it shall become a Y” doesn’t make it true. If it said, “shall . . . become a veggie combo platter,” would anybody take THAT seriously? If not, then why do they take “shall . . . become a law” seriously?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s