Obama to be sworn in on Lincoln’s Bible

==That is certainly interesting, something to look for during the ceremony. I guess it blows away the rumor that he was going to be sworn in using the Quran. No kidding, I have heard otherwise intelligent people say that:laugh: .

 

Hate to see a good kook theory die.

 

After he is sworn in with this Bible, I wonder if all the people with the "theory's will admit they jumped the gun on this one?

Didn't Jeb Barlet use this Bible? You know, Jeb from the show West Wing. I loved that show I wish they would have continued it.

 

I wonder if the left or right wing kooks will protest this as well?

Or perhaps PETA will protest the leather cover? Or tree huggers will protest the fact that a tree was cut down to make the paper.

I checked the library of congress website and Peta should be happy, the cover is velvet not leather. No word on which version it is. Will anyone protest that it is KJV (I am guessing it probably is)? Will anyone protest that its not?

I think this is pretty cool and a nice historic jesture from our new President.

 

Empty symbolism.

 

Keep your eye on his other hand...it will be on the Q'ran (or fishing for a smoke) :laugh:

 

Will he be doing it in jest?

 

Trying to perpetuate the myth that he is Lincoln incarnate!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

I wonder if there is still an old Bible of Jeff Davis' that a future prez can use.

 

And no doubt Obama will carry on Lincoln's legacy by finishing what Lincoln started - the destruction of the constitution.

Well, that's not really fair because Lincoln actually did finish it off. The only reason it hasn't been replaced is because liberals like to occasionally claim adherence to it when it suits their cause.

By the way, even the staunch Lincoln defender Peter Marshall Jr. admits that Lincoln was not a Christian until, maybe, his third year in office. He had said some critical things about the Bible during his pre-presidential years, and so I guess Obama will indeed walk in Lincoln's shoes when he hypocritically swears in on a book he doesn't believe.

But of course, by the time the historians of the winning side gets done, Obama will be a Saint just like Lincoln.

And just so you'll know I'm an equal-opportunity cynic, Thomas Red-Letter-Bible Jefferson (a good ole southren) was a hypocrite when he put his on the Bible too. But at least Jefferson didn't destroy the constitution that he swore to uphold.

 

So you think the swearing in of a President is something to make fun of? Do you call yourself a patriot?

 

I do. And just to make you happy, maybe the zero will have his fingers crossed on his left hand, behind his back.......


:laugh:

 

Folks, we have a psychic in our midst. Here's a guy who claims to know what the incoming President believes or doesn't believe. Very interesting.

 

Me being one. :saint:

 

Not too late to have Louis Farrakhan do the invocation. Sounds like Warren is to controversial.

 

I thought he was the Anti-christ want the Bible burn his hand?:laugh: :laugh:
I am sorry that is vampires :laugh: or is it.
Can we do it YES WE CAN!!!

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Lincoln? The guy who forced congress to remain is session at gun point and suspended habus corpus (sp?)? Who killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo combined?

 

If my memory serves me correctly, the last Democrat President we had also was twice sworn into office with a Bible (maybe not Lincoln's, but it was a Bible) being held by the next Secretary of State.

I'm really thrilled that while placing his hand on the Bible he swore to uphold, protect & defend the US Constiution. Too bad he didn't bother swear to uphold what that Bible told him to do in Exodus 20.

And, for the purposes of revealing my bi-partisanship, I venture to say that his successor didn't do much better at it, nor did most of the last Democrat president's predecessors (R or D).

To wit: Which military action since the US joined the UN in which our military forces were engaged (none of which were constituionally authorized by a declaration of war by the US Congress) resulted in a complete, un-questioned, decisive victory for the US? And upon such an obvious victory all of our military forces were then immediately withdrawn back to within the borders of the US so that additional tax money wouldn't be spent funding the DoD's bare-bones budget in all of the places we really need our military forces be located after achieving such an incredible, awesome victory?

Well, let's see there was .... ah ..... um.....

Can any of my BB friends out there help me out on this one?

If one wishes to point to Desert Storm as such a case in point, remember that Bush I was first criticized for stopping at the Kuwaiti border and not pursuing Saddam all the way to the northern borders of Iraq. Then, with Bush II in command, we claimed to have done that (Remember "Mission Accomplished" in 2003?). Moreover, Bush I saw both Shield and Storm not primarily as a US military venture (assuming, I suppose, that a constitutional declaration of war would therefore be unnecessary) but rather as proof positive of how successful the joint forces of THE NEW WORLD ORDER would, once-and-for-all, finally make all the Middle East secure for all people living in that part of the world.

Bravo for Bush I, right?