Tuesday, December 11, 2012


True to his level of character, President BO (the amateur president) is thinking about having a private inauguration ceremony behind closed doors, with not even the press corps present.

The inauguration date falls on a Sunday.

Inaugural committee officials privately indicated to reporters that the January 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza.

Traditionally, when the inauguration date falls on a Sunday, the ceremony takes place twice, once on Sunday, with the press corps present as witnesses, and then again on Monday for the benefit of the public.

This is what happened at Ronald Reagan's second inauguration.

Now PBO (tap) wants to magnify his transparency by going private with the event.

(One might be tempted to conclude that he doesn't really want transparency, but golly-gee, that would contradict what he ran on for his first term, and we all know he never contradicts himself.)

So, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that when conducted in secret, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding (who, himself is not unreproachable), the public, whom he is supposed to serve, will not know what actually takes place.

He might not say the required words. He might change them to suit his fancy. He might omit the word "faithfully," or leave out the part about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

If this event is behind closed doors, those present might say he did it right, but how would we ever know?

In a sense it may not be all that important, since President BO (the amateur president) does not particularly put much stock in pledges.

The oath is: "I (insert name here) 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."

Obama has failed to faithfully executed the Office of President of the United States by resorting to Executive Orders, and by publicly stating that he is more than willing to bypass Congress to get his will done.

He has repeatedly stated that he believes the Constitution of the United States to be a flawed document that tells government what it can't do, but fail to tell it what it can do.

Here are his own words in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote.
"I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

("It)Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

That is not the definition of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

Say what you will, these are not the words of a person ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are the words of a man who would like to CHANGE the Constitution to something he finds more palatable.

The citizens of the United States of America, and the White House Correspondents Association, have a right to witness the man they elected to the highest office in the land swear to defend the Constitution.

Let's hope and pray that he does so publicly.

That really would be more transparent, don't you think?


Xavier Onassis said...

OH MY GOD! You are the silliest person on the Internet.

The United States Constitution calls for the swearing in of the next President to take place on January 20 following his election on the first Tuesday in November of the previous year.

January 20, 2013, happens to fall on a Sunday. In order to meet the Constitutional requirement to have a Constitutionally sworn in President in office on January 20, a private, official ceremony is being held in a government office that is normally closed on a Sunday to pander to Christians.

The public, re-enactment of that official, constitutional function will take place on the next calendar day which is approved by Christians.

None of this nonsense would be necessary if our politicians didn't pander to religious idiots who insist that the Sunday defined on our current calendar is some sort of sacred day on which certain secular functions are prohibited by Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture = Medieval superstitious nonsense.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Try to tamp your paranoia down to a non-clinical level.

Joe said...

XO: Your contempt, arrogance, intolerance and disrespect is very typical of what the liberal left is.

Why do you even care if a fellow American chooses to believe in a diety that you reject? Hundreds of thousands do, and you should respect them for it, even if you disagree with them.

You can't even see the hateful meanness of your attitude, something liberals claim they don't have.

The point is IF it is carried out this is the first time in history that the ceremony will be closed to the press corps.

It is perfectly OK to have two ceremonies, it is just more than a little strange for the most transparent administration in the history of the universe to be contemplating excluding the press from the actual swearing in.

And I like my paranoia right where it is, thank you very much. I happen to like clinics. If you don't like it...get over it.

Joe said...

XO: Besides, my fourth paragraph says exactly what you said. I just think it should be done in the traditional way...with the press present.

I also said the administration is CONSIDERING having the ceremony behind closed doors. I did not say they were actually going to do it.

However, I DID express my concern that there would be something lost if they changed it to a closed session, and you did not convince me otherwise. Instead, you chose to focus on a red herring.

Lose the hate, it will serve you well to do so.

Ducky's here said...

What do you think is going to happen, Joe?
Is Roberts going to swear him to hand the nation over to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Joe said...

Ducky: The point is, with no press present, there is no way to know. Maybe it will be perfect in every respect, with no stumblings, mis-readings or anything else.

Chief Justice Roberts might require him to recite "Mary Had A Little Lamb, a little pork, a little jam...an ice cream soda topped with fizz, and Oh, how sick our Mary is."

Maybe not.

If there is no press present (except the WH photographer), you'll never know.

That's all.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, why do you reflexively look for the worst possible interpretation?

Based on your theory, should we assume the worst from all public officials that engage in the same behavior?

In my opinion, that is one of the major problems in America today... people automatically assuming the worst in our politicians from the other side of the aisle.

There have been Republican leaders who have closed their swearing in ceremonies to the public and also the press before, most recently John Kasich of Ohio.

Was he up to nefarious purposes? Of course not.

He just wanted it private.

I don't agree with Obama not allowing press, but that is his right.

I knew his decision to do so would bring out people looking for reasons to continue to criticize President Obama.

Joe said...

DM: "...people automatically assuming the worst in our politicians from the other side of the aisle."

I am an equal opportunity assumer. I trust no politician, Democrat or Republican, although I trust some Republicans a sconce more...but not much.

"...Republican leaders who have closed their swearing in ceremonies..."

I, of course, was specifically referencing the office of the presidency. Historically, when the swearing in took place on Sunday, the press was allowed in.

For some reason, either this president does not trust the press to report the event accurately, or he has something to hide.

I can understand if he does not trust the press. Neither do I. But he should just say so, and not try to keep this all a secret, a secret that seems to have leaked out anyway.

He promised transparency. Is that what this move would promote?

Joe said...

DM: "I knew his decision to do so would bring out people looking for reasons to continue to criticize President Obama."

Well, he seems bent on providing as many reasons as he can possibly think of.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, I am not sure that we can see a historic trend for an event that has happened only seven times in our nations history.

Yes, Reagan did involve the press, but that hardly can be categorized as historically what we have done.

Again I would ask, if others take the same path as Obama in the swearing in ceremonies, can we assume that they too do not trust the press to report accurately, or have something to hide as you imply in your criticism of President Obama?

Or is only Obama potentially guilty of this?

Joe said...

DM: It was only Obama that I was referring to in this post. Why is that so hard to understand? Is your brain stuck on something it doesn't want to be stuck on?

What I do is not made right or wrong by what someone else does, except, of course, in the liberal mind.

Reagan and his predecessors whose inaugurations fell on Sundays did it right, Obama is thinking about doing it wrong.

Nothing you say can defend that.

Once again, it is not what he decides to do that is the main issue. The main issue is his own promise to be open and transparent.

Can't deal with that, can you?

Fabian the Rocket Scientist said...

Joe, the answer is No, these Obama worshipers cannot see the Forest through the trees.
I just can't help myself from laughing or crying from the Stupid things that Liberals say.
And how they never fail to bring up George Bush or Ronald Reagan, but ALWAYS fail to mention Jimmy Carter and even Joe Biden. Ever since that dirt bag became president we see more and more of these morons coming out of the wood-work.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, you posited a theory that a secret, or perhaps private inauguration of a President might be nefarious. You've offered no evidence of that, which of course, is your right.

You stated that historically, the press attends and records these Sunday private affairs, which until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated was false, most famously proved by the Hayes inauguration, which was a closed private affair for fear of riots after after a contentious election.

When asked if your theory was universal, and could or would apply to any Chief Exec who was elected, or was just directed at President Obama, you deflected, essentially answering my question.

Like many conservatives Joe, you are angry at a lot of things related to President Obama. Some of those are justified, some not. But when you are shown that he is not the first President to do those things which anger you, you find a way to excuse your inconsistency.

Joe if you had read my post before, as your other also didn't, you would see I too am unhappy with our presidents choice.

gastorgrab said...

Just think about it Joe, we've got four more years of Barack Hussein and Moocheel in the white house. And these a$$ kissers making excuses for them.. Isn't that enough to make you puke!.

Craig said...

that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

What, generally, is wrong with Obama's statement? Why is it " not the definition of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution"?

Joe said...

Craig: "...that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties" is finding fault with the Constitution (his having already said it was a flawed document). That is not preserving, protecting and/or defending.

When one defends something, one gives reasons why it is as it should be. He does not believe the Constitution is as it should be and does not defend it, as he swore to do.

The Constitution IS changable. It is changable through the process of amendment. Changing it by judicial decree, executive order or and other means is wrong.

DM:: Do you define the term "historically" to mean every time in the past? Or do you define it as having happened in history?

Craig said...

Joe, The radio interview you cited was a 3 person panel on the issue of slavery. Obama's "flawed" statement was that the Constitution reflected a flaw in American culture at the time. Blacks, Africans, did not have innate worth as human beings. This isn't arguable. It took a civil war and the 13th Amendment to start dealing with it. Racism and bigotry have been the pilonidal cyst on the butt of America since the founding. We lance it from time to time but it keeps coming back.

His view isn't radical and certainly doesn't an unwillingness to defend and uphold the Constitution. He's not alone in this view either,

"In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."
Condi Rice

"They (Founders) never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we're not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove." (The Constitution's amendment process) "did allow some fundamental flaws to be addressed like slavery -- abolished in the Thirteenth Amendment."
John Roberts

'Negative rights' or 'negative liberty' are legal and philosophical terms that have specific meaning. They apply to 'rights' that are not granted by govt. but rights that cannot be taken from you by govt. Constitutional scholars, the Right and the Left, agree that it is a document of 'negative liberties'. It's not a disparaging term. It's a good thing, Joe.

Changing it by judicial decree, executive order or and other means is wrong.

Every president since Washington has used Executive Orders and every one has used Art. II, Sect.I, Clause I of the Constitution to Justify it. Every one has also taken heat from the opposition on the constitutionality of their Orders. I'm kinda with you on this, Joe. I felt the same way about Bush's hundreds on signing statements that often, blatantly, ignored laws passed by Congress. Cheney's theory of 'Unified Executive' power. So, while I don't think EO's are unconstitutional, I see your point.

Congress often brings this upon themselves, writing legislation that is vague in how to execute it. There are remedies, Congress can pass a law addressing an EO they don't like. The constitutionality can be challenged in court. The next pres. can overturn an EO by EO.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus by EO and it was overturned by Congress. He also used EO to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Truman used it to integrate the military. Reagan used it to bar the use of federal funds for abortion.

Obama's use of EO's and judicial fiat is no worse, and probably less than most presidents in history. Your fears of a presidential coup are overwrought and bad for your emotional and physical well being. Chillax, big fella. Come to the light. Let reality wash over you.

Joe said...

Craig: "Constitutional scholars, the Right and the Left, agree that it is a document of 'negative liberties'. It's not a disparaging term. It's a good thing, Joe."


It was Obama who called it flawed and complained that it did not tell the governmen what it CAN do.

You know, when you listen to someone speak, meaning can be relayed by tone, inflection and emphasis.

In that interview, it was abundantly clear that Obama did not like the Constitution. His campaign promise to fundamentally change America was a reference to his desire to circumvent the Constitution that he so criticized.

He has done so.

Joe said...

Craig: "I felt the same way about Bush's hundreds on signing statements that often, blatantly, ignored laws passed by Congress. Cheney's theory of 'Unified Executive' power."

I totally agree with you.

I consider most executive orders implemented over the years to be unconstitutional. Maybe not all, but certainly most.

The President is supposed to head the Executive Branch of government...that is: he is supposed to execute(put into practice) or veto the bills passed by the House and the Senate.

He is not supposed to legislate.

President Obama has circumvented the House and the Senate much too often.