Questions Concerning Obama's Loyalty

E-mail from Bobby Garner to subscriber list
January 24, 2009

A Blog of members of the Church of England in the Diocese of Chelmsford states:

In law, one can be "faithful" to more than one subsidiary lord, but can owe "allegiance" to only one master, who has no superior, and "true" faith or allegiance cannot be shared. This follows from the well-established legal maxim that "no man can serve two masters" (the Bible, Matthew 6:24). What is more, every naturalised British citizen swears "to be faithful and bear true allegiance" not to the state or nation, but personally to "Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs, and successors." This has important consequences. The Queen is not only the Head of State, and "Head of the Armed Forces," but is also "Defender of the [Christian] Faith,"...
- chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com

In the following quote, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is quoted as saying: "We feel it's a good way to start the day, Like a meditation, prayer, or exercise routine...". I haven't been able to confirm the following quote, but if it proves to be true, it will certainly raise questions about Obama's loyalty...

Later this week, Obama is schedule to affirm he will "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law," followed by pledges to "protect Ukraine's sovereignty and independence;" "observe the Laws, promote the general welfare of the Brazilian people;" "govern the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its Constitution and Laws;" and later, in the words of Hippocrates, "swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath."
- huffingtonpost.com

A Guardian News Blog notes:

Most people dismissed comments by the likes of Chris Wallace on Fox News that Barack Obama was not president because of the bungled oath on inauguration day, but citing "an abundance of caution", White House officials arranged for the oath to be retaken last night.

Alas, Obama did not bring his Bible, which has led some bloggers to state that the oath was once more invalid and the US has still not had a black president.

On Above the Law an anonymous poster writes: "It clearly states that a Bible was not used on Wednesday. Obama is not president."

"WE DON'T HAVE A PRESIDENT! …
- guardian.co.uk

USA Today reports with less spin:

After all the speculation over the Bible passage Barack Obama might select as the place to put his hand during the oath of office on Tuesday, he picked ... the whole book. The Lincoln Bible in Michelle Obama's hands was closed. (Wednesday, for the "do-over" oath ceremony when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath correctly, there was no Bible present.)
- usatoday.com

Actually the Constitution does not require a Bible or the words "So help me God", but I don't believe it allows allegiance to a foreign power. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

Questions concerning Obama's inauguration addressed at usconstitution.net...
Constitutional Topic: Presidential Inaugurations

< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >

Comments:

The comedy of loyalty to the other guy.....

The human mind, therefore that of you the reader of these words, was designed with learnable processes that facilitate it being easily fooled into believing amusingly false illusions.  Learn them or be among those from whom others learn.

One such process is its taught craving to make decisions for other minds (other sets or knowledge or data bases), a fool's quest since the decisions are made without the other guy's data base that immediately thereafter, inherently alters the affects of the decision, usually at damage to the fool who acquiesced to the decision based on an unknown complete set of knowledge.

But worse....... Concurrently, a mind that attempts to make decisions for other, inherently unknown complete sets of knowledge, will therefore by that self-training of one's own mind acquiesce to having equally illogical decisions made for it, by other people who are foolishly believed to hold superior knowledge.

The spectrum of logical evaluation for such acquiescence includes a generally logical acquiescence to the decisions of a medical doctor or auto mechanic recognized as competent (still a 50/50 chance leaving YOU bare to your failure to fully synthesize the doctor's knowledge with your own), then to the laughable absurdity of acquiescence to verifiably ignorant, corrupted minds wielding power rather than reasoning, such as kings, presidents, professors, congressmen, cops, lawyers, court judges and such titles based on verifiably contradicted illusions (titles, credentials) that created institutional power rather than any advanced reasoning process that can resolve contradictions.

THEREFORE, it is not humanly possible, by design of the human mind, to serve ANY OTHER master.  Your inescapable, only master is your own mind, a device of the same design as the mind of the king, doctor, court judge, professor and the cool street dude living in a cardboard box and analyzing the passing human phenomenon.

The peasant or president who claims loyalty to anything other than his own reasoning ability is merely another fool, like those who support him, acting on the stage of the human comedy, by design of the human mind, much to the amusement of the observers.

Enjoy the show.

DougBuchanan.com

Thank you Doug for once again supplying us with your sapient advice and discernment. I will post this as a reply to my E-mail.

For those who may not know, Doug practices what he preaches (well he's not really a preacher).
Its Intellectual Technology. Read more about it freely on his website, dougbuchanan.com.

Bobby

< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >

Comments:

none