Obama’s Secret Oath of Office?

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Oh, c’mon, we’ve all got a little bit of conspiracy theorist in us.

Barack Obama will take his second, well technically third, Oath of Office on January 20, 2013. It’s the third because Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the initial oath in 2009, ironically misplacing the word “faithfully.” The President had to re-take the oath, just to be safe.

As if any of us really feel safe under the Obama Administration. Heck, after the Obamacare decision, I’m not sure we can even feel safe with a Chief Justice Roberts.

This year, because January 20 falls on a Sunday, Obama will take the Oath in private and then take it again in a public ceremony on January 21. And, various news sources are reporting that the media won’t be allowed in.

That whole Sunday thing is going to hack off the atheists who want Obama to omit the words “so help me God.” The words are not required. Since Barack Obama has a history of omitting references to the Creator, maybe he won’t say those words this time and he’ll make them happy. Although, when you don’t believe in anything, what have you really got to be happy about?

I digress.

But why the Oath in private? Not allowing any media?

On the one hand, if you’re paranoid, you could speculate that he’ll say something different. But on the other hand, the Constitution specifies the words he must say.

It’s a curious thing that a man who is adored by, and to a great extent created by, the mainstream media is considering not allowing them to be there when he officially begins his second term.

Maybe it’s as simple as Obama and Roberts getting together and saying “hey, we blew it last time, let’s practice first.”

Conspiracy or not, it’s quite odd that the “most transparent administration in history (TM)” doesn’t want the country to see the second term begin.

Okay, a lot of us don’t want to see the second term begin. But it’s going to happen.

Why can’t we watch?

@mrfletcher | facebook.com/mrfletcher58 | Michael’s posts

  • So where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to watch the oath-taking? Far as I can see, the Consitution doesn’t require a public (or any kind of) ceremony other than the actual taking of the oath.

    • “Most transparent administration in history”…beloved by the media, yet won’t provide access…c’mon, Tom, read the post before you ingratiate yourself to our dear leader.

  • MD Russ

    When a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound if there is no one to hear it? If the President takes the oath in private, is he really the President? Yes. The following Presidents took the oath in private:

    Theodore Roosevelt, privately in a residence in Buffalo, NY

    Woodrow Wilson, privately in President’s Room, US Capitol

    Calvin Coolidge, privately at his father’s residence in Plymouth, Vermont

    Additionally, the following Presidents took the oath privately and then publicly:

    Rutherford Hayes

    Chester Arthur

    Dwight Eisenhower

    Ronald Reagan

    • Reagan’s was televised.

      • MD Russ


        Not to be argumentative, but Reagan’s outdoor inauguration was moved inside on January 21, 1985 because of frigid cold weather that day in Washington. I believe that swearing-in, in the Capitol Rotunda, was the one that was televised. According to the Archives of the Capitol, his swearing-in on Sunday, January 20th was “private” and conducted in the foyer of the White House.


        And I know for a fact that neither Hayes’ nor Arthur’s were televised.

        • I’m well aware of that. I cancelled plans to attend because of the weather. He did take the oath “privately” in the White House on Sunday, January 20, 1985. That was televised. I watched it.

  • Fletcher: “…we’ve all got a little bit of conspiracy theorist in us”

    You don’t speak for me with that sentence. If the party affiliations were reversed, this would be something I’d expect Feld to write over at BlueVirginia.

    • No Bruce, I would never presume to speak for you. But if you had read past the first sentence, you would have understood that it was just a snarky comment, and not the point of the post.

      • The point of the post was just as ridiculous. This is BlueVirginia-style nitpicking.

        • So, you’re basically being nit picky about nit picking…

          • Nope. Just mocking a BlueVirginia style “Let’s find anything tangentially related to somebody we don’t like and get outraged about it” article.

  • Remain calm! All is well! Remain calm! All is well!


    Money line on Obama not saying “so help me God” : +2800

  • Pingback: Tác d?ng c?a n?m linh chi và cách s? d?ng hi?u qu?()

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.