Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Meet the New Boss... the Same as the Old Boss

As anybody with a TV found impossible to avoid, Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated as the nation’s 44th president this past January 20th in a traditional inauguration ceremony in Washington DC. The ceremony was notable not just for the lavish, over the top expense ($160 million) during what the press keeps calling the “greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression,” but it was also notable for the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the Oath of Office. Obama, as he always is, was pretty much adrift without his teleprompter and interrupted Roberts in mid-recitation, throwing off the Chief Justice and then promptly repeating the mis-reading for all to hear.

As the story goes, later that same day Roberts and Obama got to talking at a luncheon, and decided that maybe they’d better have another go at it. There is substantial dispute as to whether the Oath of Office is constitutionally required or not. Some say that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution requires that the following Oath be administered before the president can legally take office:

"I [name] 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."

Personally, I’d like it better if this were changed to say “preserve, protect and defend the People and the Constitution of the United States.” After all, let’s face it; the democrats are pretty much into the whole “living breathing” concept of the Constitution, which basically means they can interpret it to say anything they feel like it says at any given moment (see Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott, eminent domain, etc.). But that isn’t really the point here.

Some view the 20th amendment to the Constitution as overriding the requirement for the Oath, but if you read the amendment it only states that the terms of the President and Vice President shall begin at noon on the 20th of January every four years. It says nothing about the President actually “enter(ing) upon the Execution of his Office” at that time. Other rulings have made it clear that there can be a power vacuum when no one is effectively President or Vice President, so it would seem that we do need the Oath after all.

At any rate, the new President and the Chief Justice evidently decided that a second Oath was necessary, just to be sure BHO was in fact the acting President. As most of us have heard by now, the real swearing in ceremony (if the first in fact, was invalid) Oath of Office was administered by Roberts in the White House in a quickie ceremony only witnessed by a couple of pool reporters, and with only one photographer present. Something of a mini-controversy arouse because the second time around, Obama didn’t make use of a bible, as is the tradition. So in essence, this was the first non-binding Oath of Office ever given a new President.

(I don’t know what the problem is guys. It could have been worse. At least he didn’t swear on the Koran…)

Naturally, all this symbolic ritualistic weirdness caught my attention. And well it should have.

The first thing I noticed was that the new ceremony took place at 7:30 PM local time (actually now, 7:35 according to some sources). 7:30 of course is actually 19:30 hours, or more precisely, 19.5 hours. Even though it was officially 7:35 and not exactly 7:30, it was, as the saying goes, “close enough for government work.” Readers of Dark Mission of course know all about the ritual significance of the number 19.5, and 19.5 degrees as it relates to NASA\Masonic ritual.

Benjamin Latrobe

The second interesting thing was that the Oath took place in the White House Map Room, a first floor room that was once used to plan war strategies and obviously, look at maps. This room is significant because it was part of an initial layout done by architect Benjamin H. Latrobe, well known as a master American architect of the early days of Washington DC and the man who did the majority of the architecture for the US Capitol building.

Latrobe, besides being famous for his original style and symbolic designs, was also (of course) a Freemason who was well acquainted with Thomas Jefferson, Washington and Benjamin Franklin. These 2 coincidences in of themselves had me intrigued, but I got even more interested when I started to do a little research on the Map Room itself.

Here is a Clinton era photograph of the Map Room, as it was furnished during that administration. Note the fire place, the window (facing south), the candelabras (there are 2, on either side of the fire place) and the portrait of Latrobe himself. All very nice and traditional.

Now look again at the one and only picture released by the White House of the second, and (by implication) official ceremony:

Notice anything different? Well, there’s the fire place, the candelabras and the portrait, along with the obvious lack of a bible. But how about the portrait of Benjamin Latrobe? In the Clinton era, it was hanging on the wall next to the window (behind Roberts in this photo), and now it has been moved to a place of prominence directly over the fire place and exactly between BHO and the Chief Justice. So as the new President takes his real, “official” oath -- at 19.5 hours -- the whole ceremony is being overseen (and blessed?) by Latrobe, architect, founder, and Freemason.

Hmm, I wonder if that was an accident?

Any suspicions I had along those lines were quickly erased as I looked for other pictures of the Map Room. In roaming the web, I found this image from a White House history site:

This is, according to the site, an image of the Map Room from a C-SPAN broadcast (obviously) in 2008. As you can see, as late as last year, the placement of Latrobe’s portrait remained unchanged from the Clinton years. Now this could have been January of 2008, but it could also have been from December of 2008, strongly implying that the picture was moved recently. It seems unlikely that with the Bush family scheduled to move out this year that they would bother to move the portrait themselves. After all, why mess with the décor of a rarely used room when you aren’t going to be around to enjoy the changes, especially this late in your administration? I think it makes pretty good sense to conclude that the portrait was moved after Obama took office, if not specifically for this very important ceremony. If that is the case, what does it imply for our new President and what does this symbolism signal about his true loyalties?

Bush took a lot of flack from the conspiracy culture for wanting to use a Masonic bible first used by George Washington for his inaugurations. What then will they think about Obama’s use of this critical Masonic symbolism in his?

So then I got to thinking; if the Masonic symbolism of this ceremony is so important, conducting it at 19.5 hours, moving the portrait of the Freemason who laid out the room to a prominent place overseeing the “Change you can believe in” era, what else might be symbolic about this photo? Well, for one thing, Obama is against the wall, facing due south. Looking at the position of the Map Room from the graphic below, it is clear he was facing the one and only window in the Map Room, which faces due south out across the Capitol Mall. So I wondered, what is out that window that he could have been symbolically facing?

If you guessed the Washington Monument, you get an “A.” From his position as he took the Oath, Mr. Change You Can Believe In was not only being symbolically blessed by a prominent Freemason, he was facing the monument to the country's most prominent Freemason, George Washington.

Now, as most of us know, the Washington Monument is a colossal 550 foot stone obelisk (yes, that is 6,660 inches -- 666 [0]) identical in geometry (if not in height) to the most magnificent stone obelisks of ancient Egypt. The connections of Freemasonry to the gods of ancient Egypt are well known and recounted in Dark Mission, so I won’t repeat them here.

At any rate, this gigantic structure, nearly five times larger than its tallest Egyptian counterpart, was designed by another famous American architect, Robert Mills. Mills was, of course, a Freemason like Latrobe. But not only that, he was a student of Latrobe’s in Philadelphia in the early 1800’s.

Starting to see a pattern here? Me too.

So we have a second swearing in ceremony, without the constraints of a bible (which god then did Barack Hussein Obama swear his Oath to, I wonder? Osiris?), conducted under the portrait of a prominent Freemason (which was probably moved just for that purpose) while in a room designed by that Freemason while facing a monument erected to a Freemason which was designed by a Freemason who was a student of the Freemason who laid out the Map Room.

Right? Oh yeah, and this all took place right around 19.5 hours on the 21st.

Okay. Anything else?

Of course.

Anytime I get a specific date, time and place for a ritual like this, whether it be a NASA ritual, a political ritual, or a religious ritual, I start wonder about the positions of the stars. As we’ve shown over and over, NASA has an affinity for arranging certain rituals in accordance with specific alignments related to the ancient Egyptian gods Isis, Osiris and Horus. These same Egyptian gods are also the highest deities worshiped by the Freemasons (among other esoteric organizations) so given the overwhelming Masonic overtones of this second swearing-in ceremony, I just couldn’t help myself.

What I got was interesting

As our readers know, the Ritual Alignment Model we advocate has some pretty specific criteria. In order to classify something a “hit,” it has to be with ½ a degree of position and a minute or 2 of time. When I initially saw the location of Sirius (Isis) and Orion (Osiris) and Leo (Horus), I figured we had another one.

But when I checked the actual altitude, it turned out to be close, but no cigar.

At 7:35 EST, Sirius was at 18° 26’, one full degree off. Again, this is very close, but not close enough to declare a hit. Also interestingly, Regulus in Leo, which is the only star in that constellation we use for our RAM, was within the range for a hit on the horizon, rising at 38 minutes above Washington. Still, this was on the outside edge of the acceptable range. So using my trusty Red Shift software, I slowly turned back the clock until it was dead on the horizon, which turned out to be 7:31 PM. Advancing it in the same manner, Sirius came into perfect 19.5° alignment at 7:42 PM, some 6 minutes after the ceremony.

So there wasn’t an additional ritual hit, at least not one that fit the tight parameters we laid out in chapter 5 of Dark Mission. But the ceremony did take place in the middle of an 11 minute window between 2 significant alignments, one of Horus (Leo) and one of Isis (Sirius). And, even though it wasn’t a perfect hit, this is what Obama would have seen had he looked out across the Mall to the Washington Monument and beyond when he took the second, binding Oath…

After looking at this situation closely, I have to say it is an inauspicious omen for “change” in Washington. It seems to me our new President is just as ritually bound as our old one, and evidently beholden to the same fraternal puppet masters. At least, that seems to be the symbolic message.

Or as The Who put so succinctly decades ago, "Meet the new boss. The same as the old boss."

UPDATE: Here's the picture Crispy referred to in his post.

And a close-up...



  1. I'm not sure I understand why you come off sounding so pessimistic, Mike.

    We both know the veil will soon be lifted and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. Not a hundred Mike Malins or even a million JimOs.

    I just purchased and watched RCH's recently released DVD. He appears to be as optimistic as I am as far as Obama is concerned.

    Do you have a different take/slant on Obama than the one expressed by RCH in his Secrets presentation? That take being as I percieved it, "Obama might actually be able to pull off what Kennedy couldn't".

    In other words, I didn't hear a single sentence or phrase in RCH's dvd indicating pessimism or fear regarding Obama. I'm curious to know what yours might be.

  2. Politics is someting Richard and I do not agree on. I am less than convinced of his take on Obama, but he is often right and I may end up agreeing with him. Our two different perspectives are crucial sometimes to figuring out agendas.

    But facts are facts. Richard has a differnt opinion than I as to the meaning of all of this Masonic ceremony.

    He initially wanted a different take on this Oath business, but I can't write what I don't believe. He may well post his own take on what all of this means.

  3. That's cool, Mike. Contention is usually a great way to maintain perspective. :)

    Just remember Kennedy did quite a few things accoring to ritualistic code too. And judging from [your] book, I think/hope you consider Kennedy to be one of the good guys like I do.

    For what it's worth, my take is the good guys couldn't let the secret out because they have faith in certain prophecies, understand what they mean, and realize they need to be fulfilled in their own way and time.

    In other words, I think they were waiting for something... or someone before they could really move forward.

    I believe the wait is over...


    Think positive, brother!

    We have power to influence reality... never doubt or forget it... Ah, the power of vertical, right? ;)

  4. Wasn't the time for the first presidental oath,as very strictly defined by the US constitution, really dire & negative ,astrologically for both the US & BHO.
    So it implies a very neat side step.
    RCH also miscalled Cheney in the early days .....[ remember his concern about Cheney's heart condition in early/mid 2001.We knowing what we supect now about him,would probably not have been holding novenas or pujas for him. ]

  5. I can't quite tell from the images, but how aligned are The Whitehouse, Washington Monument and Orion et al? Some of the ritualistic stars look pretty close...

    If the Washington Monument falls directly in the way of Obama's view of the intended ritualistic star, then they wouldn't appear until they had risen above the Monuments apex...

  6. The institution of the Presidency (for that matter the layout of D.C.) itself was molded by a Freemason, back in the days when doing the "Grand Poohbah" thing was cool. Could be there are some basic written or verbally-passed "rules of the road" for decorum and placement laid out within the White House itself, rooted in this framework. I think the 11 minute window for alignment is more significant than you give yourself credit for, however.

  7. As the saying goes:

    "same sh*t, different toilet."

  8. The alignment isn't necessarily perfect. If you look at Google maps, the WM is slightly offset from the White House (I wonder if it's by 19.5 degrees?) and there are some trees in the way. The idea isn't that he's actually looking at the WM, but that he is symbolically facing it and Sirius and Orion beyond.

    Crispy: I see no evidence that is actually Obama's hand with the Masonic ring on it. It looks to me like a hand model posed for the picture, although the message is undeniable - Obama is a Mason is clearly what that picture is trying to convey.

    MaxTK - AFAIC, Kennedy and Reagan are the only 2 "good guys" we've had in that office in the last few decades. Maybe Ike.

  9. Nothing happens by accident in politics. One thing I disagreed with Hoagland about is that Obama needed to be told the secrets of the road. I'm pretty sure he already was in the inner circle long before he became president.

  10. Take a closer look at the paintings in the Map Room, 1992 and 2008. The painting in the 1992 photo is rectangular in a rectangular frame with the painting's subject looking to the viewers' right.
    The painting in the 2008 (and 2009) photo(s) is an oval painting in a frame that is oval on the inside and rectangular on the outsie edges. And the subject (Latrobe) is facing to the viewers' left. It is not the same painting. However it may be a diferent painting of Latrobe. It requires more research.
    But, the point is well taken that a portrait of Latobe was prominently placed in the official photograph of the Supreme Court Chief Jusstice and the 44th President. BTW since you cannot see Obama's unraised left hand, you cannot say for certain he is not holding a book.
    And the constitution does not say athing about taking the oath or affirmation on a Bible or any other Holy Book. IUt is just tradition.


  11. The photo of Bush looks like he's a little confused with them apron-things.

  12. Mike, go back and check your Red Shift again.

    At 7:35 pm EST on January 20, 2009

    Alnitak (one of the stars of Orion's belt) was at alt. 39*05'35" for Washington and 39'03'24" for US NAVAL OBSERVATORY. 39 is 19.5 x 2. 39 degrees north is also the approximate latitude of DC.

    Also the Planet Mars was at minus 39 degrees (-38*33'45" for washington and -38*30'38" for US Nav Obs.) and a very symbolic azimuth of 270 degrees--due west.

    And intrestingly, at 12 noon in DC that day the star Mintaka in Orion's belt was below the north-eastern horizon at -39*47'11" (just off a "hit" for -39 degrees by a little more than a half degree, but headed toward the horizon and a solid -39 probably during the speech) and the moon "setting" at 12:25 pm (during the speech ?)

    p.s. you also have the date "the 21st" at one point in your blog instead of the 20th. (sh!t happens) :)


  13. Gort,

    The re-take was on Wednesday, the 21st, not on the 20th.

  14. I must say I'm now really confused about what "side" Obama is on. Some of the news media *CoughFOX* really seems to have it in for him and have been very scathing. That is really sending warning bells ringing in my head (what can I say...) making me think he's ruffled a few feathers, that he isn't all bad, and, perhaps, he's just caught in the middle of, well, life in Washington D.C.

    I'll sit between you and Hoagland at the moment - this it too close to call...


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.