Obama's speech to Hispanic caucus gala leaves out CREATOR when he quotes the Preamble

[Full-Auto]

Um, guys, I don't want to be nitpicky or anything, but Obama isn't quoting the Preamble, or any part of the Constitution. He's quoting the Declaration of Independence. Probably badly, I don't know. I can't stand to listen to him long enough to get that far in. But the two seconds I listened to were the Declaration.

yep it was the Deceleration. Which does not change the fact of what he chose to leave out of it.

True. But it sounds moderately awful for everyone in the thread to keep talking about the Constitution in relation to this speech, especially when it hits the point of accusing Obama of "only believing in certain parts of the Constitution". His inability to quote the Declaration correctly has zilch to do with whether or not he believes in or abides by the Constitution. (Mind you, I don't happen to think he believes in the Constitution at all, but still.)

Then you can explain why and how he placed an american on the kill list?

 

[code1211]

well well

SNIP:
See if you can find the words "endowed by their creator" in this clip, Obama's speech Wednesday night to the Hispanic caucus skips right over it. (Notice the long pause)
YouTube - Pr.Obama - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' - CHCI

via weselzippers

OBAMA: "We all shared the same land. We didn’t always get along. But over the centuries, what eventually bound us together, what made us all Americans, was not a matter of blood, it wasn’t a matter of birth. It was faith and fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

read the rest here.
HotAirPundit: Obama's Speech to the Hispanic Caucus Gala Leaves out the word "Creator" When He Quotes the Preamble (Video)

The rights that Jefferson wrote about were both endowed by their creator and were UNalienable.

For the smartest guy on the planet, one might suppose that he had read the thing. Does he think that Hispanics are not religious?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for spotlighting the most significant difference between traditionalists, including the Founders, and progressives, and many of our citizens 'educated' in government schools.

The abridgement was no accident, but rather the corruption of American political thought, beginning in the early 19th century, and known as 'progressivism.' Our President subscribes to this view.

1. "The rights which [an individual] possesses are...conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.” The Claremont Institute - Leaving the Constitution

2. Wilson: “No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.” Woodrow Wilson: ‘Men are as clay in the hands of a consummate leader.?

3. Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech " ...maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” New Nationalism Speech by Theodore Roosevelt
Based on this view, there are no Creator-endowed inalienable rights.

One can see, of course, that one view values the individual, while the other, the collective.

If rights come from the state, then the state does not have to work as hard in order to abridge them. They can change as society changes, and this would be seen as a natural evolution of society.

If, on the other hand, rights belong to the individual, and the individual retains those rights without any state involvement, then those rights do not evolve as society evolves. Both liberals and conservatives believed that rights belonged to the individual at one time. The clash used to be over how much state intrusion into rights could be justified, with conservatives coming down on the side of more state power to abridge rights.

It boggles my mind how progressives have managed to turn the debate on its head so quickly, and actually make the conservatives the defender of the individual instead of the liberal.

 

[code1211]

LOL It could be Obama thought for a second, and realized that when this was written there were many women, men and children, who had none of these Creator based rights, but that too is reading too much into it. He was giving a speech, no need to read into it the wingnut interpretation of the universe.

You're probably right. Jefferson was a hack and we finally have a smart guy who can express the thought correctly.

Man alive!

Oopsie! I mean: Person (of either gender since both genders and beyond that all races and all people with traditional or new age sexual preferances are of equal importance and potential) Alive!

If you are going to quote someone, then quote them and attribute. If you are going to just make stuff up, then do so but without the wholesale plageurism. The way the Big 0 did this was intentional and in perfect keeping with his standard ploy of changing things in baby steps as he did when he was at first going to create jobs with the stimulus then it became create or save jobs.

He is talent free, experience free, glib and slippery. When he does something like this it is intentional and calculated. He knew exactly what he was doing and would frown on it if it was done by a student in a debate class.

Luckily he is not teaching classes at this moment. He is classless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL It could be Obama thought for a second, and realized that when this was written there were many women, men and children, who had none of these Creator based rights, but that too is reading too much into it. He was giving a speech, no need to read into it the wingnut interpretation of the universe.

You obviously prefer the moonbat view of the world. Please point to any memebers of his audience who would not have had those rights. Keep in mind that he was speaking to a group of congressmen, and women, who obviously managed to not only survive, but get elected to office.

I do not know what he was thinking there, but I am willing to bet he did not think "I better be careful here, someone might think I am insulting them by pointing out that rights that come from God are only for some people, and not others."

 

[Cecilie1200]

yep it was the Deceleration. Which does not change the fact of what he chose to leave out of it.

True. But it sounds moderately awful for everyone in the thread to keep talking about the Constitution in relation to this speech, especially when it hits the point of accusing Obama of "only believing in certain parts of the Constitution". His inability to quote the Declaration correctly has zilch to do with whether or not he believes in or abides by the Constitution. (Mind you, I don't happen to think he believes in the Constitution at all, but still.)

Then you can explain why and how he placed an american on the kill list?

It is only morbid curiosity that makes me ask you what personal agenda item you are currently trying to shoehorn into this discussion, and what the fuck it could POSSIBLY have to do with my post.

 

[Ozmar]

LOL It could be Obama thought for a second, and realized that when this was written there were many women, men and children, who had none of these Creator based rights, but that too is reading too much into it. He was giving a speech, no need to read into it the wingnut interpretation of the universe.

Yep it is perfectly acceptable to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you believe.

Kind of like poll taxes after slavery ended, and this growing group of people wanting the anchor-baby legislation that goes counter to the constitution?

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL It could be Obama thought for a second, and realized that when this was written there were many women, men and children, who had none of these Creator based rights, but that too is reading too much into it. He was giving a speech, no need to read into it the wingnut interpretation of the universe.

Yep it is perfectly acceptable to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you believe.

Kind of like poll taxes after slavery ended, and this growing group of people wanting the anchor-baby legislation that goes counter to the constitution?

How is wanting to Amend the Constitution counter to it. You do know that is what the Anchor baby crowd wants to do right. Amend the constitution to address what they see as an abuse of the original intent of an existing Amendment.

That is not counter to the constitution that is the constitution.

They have every right to push for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep it is perfectly acceptable to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you believe.

Kind of like poll taxes after slavery ended, and this growing group of people wanting the anchor-baby legislation that goes counter to the constitution?

How is wanting to Amend the Constitution counter to it. You do know that is what the Anchor baby crowd wants to do right. Amend the constitution to address what they see as an abuse of the original intent of an existing Amendment.

That is not counter to the constitution that is the constitution.

They have every right to push for it.

Now, if we were insisting that some judge should just speak it into existence for us because we want it, the way some groups do with their agendas, THAT would be counter to the Constitution.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Friday evening President Obama addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. At around 22:30, he incorporates part of the preamble of The Declaration of Independence, removing "Creator".

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..... endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

After President Obama says "created equal...", there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times. For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter. Is looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says.

President Obama, if our Creator is not the purveyor of our human rights, then who is? The government?

YouTube - Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Award Gala

American Thinker Blog: President Obama removes 'Creator' from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence

 

[Sarah G]

Friday evening President Obama addressed the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. At around 22:30, he incorporates part of the preamble of The Declaration of Independence, removing "Creator".

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..... endowed with certain unalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

After President Obama says "created equal...", there is a long pause during which he scowls and blinks several times. For once, he may actually have opted to not read something that was on the teleprompter. Is looks like he is disgusted and decided it would be better not to read what the preamble actually says.

President Obama, if our Creator is not the purveyor of our human rights, then who is? The government?

YouTube - Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Award Gala

American Thinker Blog: President Obama removes 'Creator' from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence

Well this ought to keep you guys going for at least 6 months...

I believe someone else posted it already.

 

[Sarah G]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...-out-creator-when-he-quotes-the-preamble.html

 

[Modbert]

All three threads merged

 

[Zoom-boing]

All three threads merged

You are a fast thread mover, Mod. I was reading this thread and by the time I got to the end, my thread was moved. Nice work!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's because he thinks that the govt bestows rights on people. Its's beyond laughable but then again what do you expect from a collectivist.

 

[Stephanie]

but but don't forget, he WAS a Constitutional "PROFESSOR", played at being teacher, reader, bullshiter or sumthing like that...

what a friggen JOKE that has been PLAYED on us by this man being elected OUR PRESIDENT.

 

[Zoom-boing]

but but don't forget, he WAS a Constitutional teacher, reader, bullshiter or sumthing like that...

what a friggen JOKE that has been PLAYED on us by this man being elected OUR PRESIDENT.

To paraphrase George: Fool us once, shame on you. You fooled us, we won't get fooled again.

 

[JScott]

The humor quotient on this board would fall dramatically without you.

May you, and your moronic threads, never leave!

And you support Obama in leaving out creator?

I do. It doesnt ruin my world.

 

[Stephanie]

The humor quotient on this board would fall dramatically without you.

May you, and your moronic threads, never leave!

And you support Obama in leaving out creator?

I do. It doesnt ruin my world.

yep, another enemy within folks.
take notes.

 

[newpolitics]

Who gives a shit??????? You righties harp on such inconsequential shit. Let go of it. There are bigger problems going on. REAL problems. You care so much about God. If you're faith is so strong, it shouldn't matter what anybody says, ever. Why are you so insecure about your own beliefs?