darthvader
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 148
Obama's racism is one good thing he has going for him then. I'll tell you what obama show your support for white racism and you'll get my vote for reelection because fair is fair.
January 20, 2009- No Television Day
- Thread starter screamingeagle
- Start date
Freethinker
Hall of Famer
Don and fellow CFers,
I agree that we the "enlightened" need to be the ones to lead the blind majority. I try everyday to read up on politics, economics, history, anti-white discrimination in sports and society and pretty much anything else worthwhile. Basically, I want to put myself in the best possible position to have intelligent conversation with those I encounter who are a bit confused and uninformed. I really want to be on top of my stuff so I can command respect and credibility. Knowledge, proper education and correct information are the keys. We must all keep spreading the truth through any outlet we can. People are waking up to the many sad truths. I just hope that it will snowball over time.
I agree that we the "enlightened" need to be the ones to lead the blind majority. I try everyday to read up on politics, economics, history, anti-white discrimination in sports and society and pretty much anything else worthwhile. Basically, I want to put myself in the best possible position to have intelligent conversation with those I encounter who are a bit confused and uninformed. I really want to be on top of my stuff so I can command respect and credibility. Knowledge, proper education and correct information are the keys. We must all keep spreading the truth through any outlet we can. People are waking up to the many sad truths. I just hope that it will snowball over time.
screamingeagle
Mentor
I stayed of the TV most of Wednesday. The MSM was still pimping for him. I lost track of the many people they interviewed about this historic moment.
No television tuesday this well. BHO had lower ratings that Reagan. BHO was watched by 29,2 percent of housholds, while Reagan got 37.4 percent.
Think of all the schools that forced children to watch this, all the TVs on in public spaces, all the cable stations and satellite stations and he couldn't get more viewers than Reagan.
If was funny to watch the chattering class trying to explain this along with the drop in the stock market. People chose not to watch the coronation. They are baffled. Welcome to the real world.Edited by: screamingeagle
No television tuesday this well. BHO had lower ratings that Reagan. BHO was watched by 29,2 percent of housholds, while Reagan got 37.4 percent.
Think of all the schools that forced children to watch this, all the TVs on in public spaces, all the cable stations and satellite stations and he couldn't get more viewers than Reagan.
If was funny to watch the chattering class trying to explain this along with the drop in the stock market. People chose not to watch the coronation. They are baffled. Welcome to the real world.Edited by: screamingeagle
Solomon Kane
Mentor
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 783
Did any of you see the confusion during the oath of office? It was caused mainly by justice roberts, possibly unintentionally. Later on there was another swearing in ceremony in the white house.
Interesting: what message are they trying to send us? Was the first ceremony deemed invalid? Is the second one valid? Why was no bible used in the second ceremony? Is this the equivalent of pronouncing an oath with crossed fingers?
Here's an article from the always fascinating michael hoffman, who is a great student of the cryptocracy and their "twilight language"
The Strange Case Of Obama's
Inaugural Oath Of Office
A Cryptogram From The Cryptocracy?
By Michael Hoffman
1-23-9
<DT>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<DT>
<CENTER>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=555>
<T>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="100%">
<DL>
<DT>Jan. 23, 2009 · RevisionistHistory.org
<DT>
<DT>"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 ­'
<DT>
<DT>"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)
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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).
<DT>
<DT>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..."
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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 of billiards.
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by this apparently deliberate omission?
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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..."
<DT>
<DT>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."
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>Copyright 2009 · All Rights Reserved
<DT>
<DT>Michael Hoffman's latest book is "Judaism Discovered," now in its second printing; available from
<DT>www.RevisionistHistory.org
<DT>
<DT>>>>
<DT>
<DT>The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
<DT>
<DT>24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau:
<DT>http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html Subscribe:
<DT>HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
</DT></DL></TD></TR></T></TABLE></CENTER></DT>
Interesting: what message are they trying to send us? Was the first ceremony deemed invalid? Is the second one valid? Why was no bible used in the second ceremony? Is this the equivalent of pronouncing an oath with crossed fingers?
Here's an article from the always fascinating michael hoffman, who is a great student of the cryptocracy and their "twilight language"
The Strange Case Of Obama's
Inaugural Oath Of Office
A Cryptogram From The Cryptocracy?
By Michael Hoffman
1-23-9
<DT>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<DT>
<CENTER>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=555>
<T>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top width="100%">
<DL>
<DT>Jan. 23, 2009 · RevisionistHistory.org
<DT>
<DT>"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 ­'
<DT>
<DT>"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)
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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).
<DT>
<DT>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..."
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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 of billiards.
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by this apparently deliberate omission?
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>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..."
<DT>
<DT>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."
<DT>
<DT>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.
<DT>
<DT>Copyright 2009 · All Rights Reserved
<DT>
<DT>Michael Hoffman's latest book is "Judaism Discovered," now in its second printing; available from
<DT>www.RevisionistHistory.org
<DT>
<DT>>>>
<DT>
<DT>The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
<DT>
<DT>24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau:
<DT>http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/news.html Subscribe:
<DT>HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com
</DT></DL></TD></TR></T></TABLE></CENTER></DT>
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
Interesting find Solomon. Thanks for posting it.
Deadlift
Hall of Famer
screamingeagle said:
That's great news!!
There's also a lot of garbage on TV that doesn't get good ratings, but it's still on the air.
I always tell myself, "just because something's being aired, that doesn't mean everyone is watching it." The MSM has reported that TV viewership is down.
Where are the compelling mystery/adventure TV shows? There will be a revolt if some quality TV shows aren't added soon! There was some Marxism but "Quantum Leap" was pretty enthralling and fun. I like thinking man's programs. Many shows are simply pretending to be for the thinking man... few are actually the Real McCoy.
Jimmy Chitwood
Hall of Famer
there was obviously a lot of false information regarding the Obongo inauguration...
another example was the grossly inflated number of attendees. (much like the so-called million man march) numerous close-up camera shots, as well as carefully positioned wide shots, seemed to show a fully packed mall area. however, satellite photos tell a completely different story.
you can easily see several huge empty spaces. furthermore, according to the Council of Conservative Citizens (where i saw the photo), analysts count the figure at no more than 800,000. which is nowhere near the "over 2 million" that was reported. furthermore, CoCC states the whole mall area could hold no more than 1.2-1.5 million folks if it were completely packed.
the propaganda is everywhere.
another example was the grossly inflated number of attendees. (much like the so-called million man march) numerous close-up camera shots, as well as carefully positioned wide shots, seemed to show a fully packed mall area. however, satellite photos tell a completely different story.
you can easily see several huge empty spaces. furthermore, according to the Council of Conservative Citizens (where i saw the photo), analysts count the figure at no more than 800,000. which is nowhere near the "over 2 million" that was reported. furthermore, CoCC states the whole mall area could hold no more than 1.2-1.5 million folks if it were completely packed.
the propaganda is everywhere.
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
JC, there you go again pointing out those inconvenient facts!
That picture says volumes. This, coupled with the info about the low TV ratings, are a little solace in a such a negative time. Thanks for posting this!
screamingeagle
Mentor
I just saw Rev Lowry's speech. I was listening to the radio when he started. I turned it off. I figured he was going to give us some white guilt. Instead, we got a victory cry- "White will do what is right." I haven't heard that since college many years ago. The smile on BHO's face says it all.
I am not surprised that BHO's speech was not inspiring. When the sunject is himself- he knows what to say. When it is about others, he could care less.
I am not surprised that BHO's speech was not inspiring. When the sunject is himself- he knows what to say. When it is about others, he could care less.
Jimmy Chitwood said:there was obviously a lot of false information regarding the Obongo inauguration...
another example was the grossly inflated number of attendees. (much like the so-called million man march) numerous close-up camera shots, as well as carefully positioned wide shots, seemed to show a fully packed mall area. however, satellite photos tell a completely different story.
you can easily see several huge empty spaces. furthermore, according to the Council of Conservative Citizens (where i saw the photo), analysts count the figure at no more than 800,000. which is nowhere near the "over 2 million" that was reported. furthermore, CoCC states the whole mall area could hold no more than 1.2-1.5 million folks if it were completely packed.
the propaganda is everywhere.
I was thinking the same thing about the overblown attendance estimate, even looking at the propaganda pictures. Two million people would be the largest college football stadium in the U.S. filled 20 times over. No way. Even 800,000 seems too high to me, but is closer to the mark than the absurd two million figure routinely bandied about by the media.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
Looks like about 500K...again exposing the MSM propaganda (and lies).
Overheard a conversation between two black woman, one had went to St. O's coronation and was thrilled about it. The actual event wasn't so good for her though. It sounded like being at a classic sports game with the worst seats in the house. Apparently she (like thousands of others) was packed into a bus, herded into Washington and given a place to stand (for hours) far, far, away from actually being able to see or hear anything. HA HA, I was understandedly non-sympathetic.