Obama Drops 'Creator' From Declaration Again

Wednesday, 20 Oct 2010 02:46 PM

Either President Barack Obama isn't familiar with the words “endowed by their Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence, or he doesn't subscribe to that part of the wording that describes people’s intrinsic rights. At a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dinner Monday in Rockville, Md., Obama again either misquoted the words of the most famous document in American history or he purposely omitted them, CNS News reports.

obama, declaration, independence,For reportedly the third time in a month, Obama said that "each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence, however, actually reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Conservatives contend that Obama's inability to credit God for the rights reflects his belief that, if rights come from the government instead of a creator, the government can take them away, too.


Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Irrelevant.

Governments can and do take them away all the time, because the people let them get away with it.

This news source is every bit as agenda pushing garbage as Olbermann is.

This is not a coincidence, nor is it an accident.

(10-21-2010 11:12 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Irrelevant.

Governments can and do take them away all the time, because the people let them get away with it.

This news source is every bit as agenda pushing garbage as Olbermann is.

Irrelevant? To Who, You. It's relevant to a lot of people. He is supposed to be representing ALL Americans. He is the POTUS, he just doesn't act like it, or maybe he forgot it, or left it out on purpose.

Obama is Irrelevant.

(10-21-2010 11:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Irrelevant? To Who, You. It's relevant to a lot of people. He is supposed to be representing ALL Americans. He is the POTUS, he just doesn't act like it, or maybe he forgot it, or lrft it out on purpose.

Obama is Irrelevant.

You're setting a standard that is impossible to achieve when you say he is suppose to be representing ALL Americans. Which is moreover, wrong. He merely represents the preference of a plurality of voters on a given day when said voters were offered between 2 and 6 options.

If he included the phrase, I could make the same crybaby argument about exclusion. But that's not my point. My point is ... WHO THE HELL CARES AND HOW THE HELL IS THIS CONSIDERED NEWS?????

(10-21-2010 11:34 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:25 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Irrelevant? To Who, You. It's relevant to a lot of people. He is supposed to be representing ALL Americans. He is the POTUS, he just doesn't act like it, or maybe he forgot it, or lrft it out on purpose.

Obama is Irrelevant.

If he included the phrase, I could make the same crybaby argument about exclusion.

umm, no you couldn't, because it's actually in the freakin declaration. The POTUS should not be editing the declaration of independence. Put aside your feelings about religion and look at this purely from the perspective of a proud American citizen.

(10-21-2010 11:37 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  umm, no you couldn't, because it's actually in the freakin declaration. The POTUS should not be editing the declaration of independence. Put aside your feelings about religion and look at this purely from the perspective of a proud American citizen.

I was referring to his statement that the President should represent ALL Americans. My last statement in caps still stands.

(10-21-2010 11:39 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:37 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  umm, no you couldn't, because it's actually in the freakin declaration. The POTUS should not be editing the declaration of independence. Put aside your feelings about religion and look at this purely from the perspective of a proud American citizen.

I was referring to his statement that the President should represent ALL Americans. My last statement in caps still stands.

It shows how the current moron in chief feels about our nation's founding and it's founding documents. It's that type of thinking that has liberal loons thinking the Constitution is outdated and that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a national guard. Wording and context is very relevant.

(10-21-2010 12:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:39 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:37 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  umm, no you couldn't, because it's actually in the freakin declaration. The POTUS should not be editing the declaration of independence. Put aside your feelings about religion and look at this purely from the perspective of a proud American citizen.

I was referring to his statement that the President should represent ALL Americans. My last statement in caps still stands.

It shows how the current moron in chief feels about our nation's founding and it's founding documents. It's that type of thinking that has liberal loons thinking the Constitution is outdated and that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a national guard. Wording and context is very relevant.

You mean the part about a "well regulated militia..."? Not just a militia, but a well regulated one.

(10-21-2010 12:31 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 12:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:39 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 11:37 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  umm, no you couldn't, because it's actually in the freakin declaration. The POTUS should not be editing the declaration of independence. Put aside your feelings about religion and look at this purely from the perspective of a proud American citizen.

I was referring to his statement that the President should represent ALL Americans. My last statement in caps still stands.

It shows how the current moron in chief feels about our nation's founding and it's founding documents. It's that type of thinking that has liberal loons thinking the Constitution is outdated and that the 2nd Amendment only applies to a national guard. Wording and context is very relevant.

You mean the part about a "well regulated militia..."? Not just a militia, but a well regulated one.

It should be clear to anyone with the brain that the interpretation means A) we need a well-regulated militia to prevent tyranny, and B) the only way to form a well-regulated militia is from the people who are, themselves, armed.

"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”"

I once knew an atheist who said despite their view on things they were glad that culturally we view our rights as coming from 'God' because if you think they are just a result of 'negotiation' between the people of a nation then they are easy to take away.

The funny thing is this: The phrase 'their creator' can be any God or just evolution and genetics... There is no reason an Athiest can't believe that all people are born with a certain et of nonnegotiable rights. But a statist can not suffer that belief because they think rights come from the state.

(10-21-2010 11:12 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Irrelevant.

Governments can and do take them away all the time, because the people let them get away with it.

This news source is every bit as agenda pushing garbage as Olbermann is.

Nonsense. Go read Randy Posch's book. He grew up in Maryland, BTW. You know who he said gives rights? The community That's how his parents, public school teachers, taught him, and he's proud of that.

Is that scary enough for you? Either you conform to the standards of the community, or they take away your rights.

So yeah, it's critically important for people to realize that, in our country, their rights and liberties are derived from something other than the mob outside not being in a lynching mood.

(10-21-2010 01:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Nonsense. Go read Randy Posch's book. He grew up in Maryland, BTW. You know who he said gives rights? The community That's how his parents, public school teachers, taught him, and he's proud of that.

Is that scary enough for you? Either you conform to the standards of the community, or they take away your rights.

So yeah, it's critically important for people to realize that, in our country, their rights and liberties are derived from something other than the mob outside not being in a lynching mood.

Social contract theory.

(10-21-2010 01:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 01:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Nonsense. Go read Randy Posch's book. He grew up in Maryland, BTW. You know who he said gives rights? The community That's how his parents, public school teachers, taught him, and he's proud of that.

Is that scary enough for you? Either you conform to the standards of the community, or they take away your rights.

So yeah, it's critically important for people to realize that, in our country, their rights and liberties are derived from something other than the mob outside not being in a lynching mood.

Social contract theory.

...can break down when left to society. Need examples?

(10-21-2010 01:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 01:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Nonsense. Go read Randy Posch's book. He grew up in Maryland, BTW. You know who he said gives rights? The community That's how his parents, public school teachers, taught him, and he's proud of that.

Is that scary enough for you? Either you conform to the standards of the community, or they take away your rights.

So yeah, it's critically important for people to realize that, in our country, their rights and liberties are derived from something other than the mob outside not being in a lynching mood.

Social contract theory.

Fail. That's not SCT (at least not the one I subscribe to). SCT dictates that agreement between you and a society. It says what you will do and avoid for the society, and what the society will provide to you. Liberty is assumed b/c you are free to opt out of any contract w/ the society, and you don't immediately have a bounty on your head if you do.

Secondly, there has to be some absolute standard that provides sanctity to the contract.

(10-21-2010 01:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 01:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 01:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Nonsense. Go read Randy Posch's book. He grew up in Maryland, BTW. You know who he said gives rights? The community That's how his parents, public school teachers, taught him, and he's proud of that.

Is that scary enough for you? Either you conform to the standards of the community, or they take away your rights.

So yeah, it's critically important for people to realize that, in our country, their rights and liberties are derived from something other than the mob outside not being in a lynching mood.

Social contract theory.

...can break down when left to society. Need examples?

I don't at all argue that. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If they're "God given" rights ... why are there different numbers of rights in different countries? How can man simply take away these "God given" rights, which has happened quite frequently in history? If an omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing God bestowed these powers ... certainly that God must have seen they would be lost later on? Why bother to give them in the first place or allow them to go away then? Why doesn't this "God" enforce these rights? Are we to believe some "God" who has the power to bestow such freedoms just enjoys the occasional display of genocide, war, bloodshed, death, and destruction? Really?

The "God given" position lends itself to a landslide of deeply problematic questions.

(10-21-2010 01:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If they're "God given" rights ... why are there different numbers of rights in different countries? How can man simply take away these "God given" rights, which has happened quite frequently in history? If an omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing God bestowed these powers ... certainly that God must have seen they would be lost later on? Why bother to give them in the first place or allow them to go away then? Why doesn't this "God" enforce these rights? Are we to believe some "God" who has the power to bestow such freedoms just enjoys the occasional display of genocide, war, bloodshed, death, and destruction? Really?

The "God given" position lends itself to a landslide of deeply problematic questions.

Those are the most ridiculous questions I've ever seen. That's the kind of crap you see from out of touch with reality liberals pretending to be smarter then everyone else when in fact they're the ones not thinking.

why are there different numbers of rights in different countries?


Because some governments infringe on human rights.

How can man simply take away these "God given" rights, which has happened quite frequently in history?

Because some governments infringe on human rights.

If an omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing God bestowed these powers ... certainly that God must have seen they would be lost later on?

God given, specifially the language 'creator' does not indicate omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing... If you want to have a discussion about all of that I'm game but this is not the thread.

(10-21-2010 02:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  God given, specifially the language 'creator' does not indicate omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing... If you want to have a discussion about all of that I'm game but this is not the thread.

Now we're getting somewhere. I hope you realize the implications of a non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent, and non-all-knowing God as it relates to organized religion today.

(10-21-2010 02:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-21-2010 02:01 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  God given, specifially the language 'creator' does not indicate omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing... If you want to have a discussion about all of that I'm game but this is not the thread.

Now we're getting somewhere. I hope you realize the implications of a non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent, and non-all-knowing God as it relates to organized religion today.

GTS, you consistently tread into areas where you have no understanding. None. Zero. Zilch. It's really not to your benefit.