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

[Charles_Main]

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.

Nah all it does is remove the fundamental idea that your rights come from a place mere men can not touch, and therefor No mere men can EVER TAKE THEM FROM YOU!

it's not about believing in god or not man. It is about assuring our rights can not be taken away, by saying they come from a higher power than man.

I am not religious at all, and I think that is a very important thing that should not be omitted.

 

[Gatekeeper]

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)

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.

Nothing has changed, only been enhanced with more control over the collective.

OMG! We are being assimilated into the collective!
http://i55.tinypic.com/359eq7k.jpg

 

[code1211]

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.

It doesn't ruin my world either. It causes me to question things about the integrity of the man.

Does non attributed plagreurizing, changing meanings by changing quotes and mis leading by mis quoting not make you want to challenge the motivation of any any speaker?

If you would find some degree of outrage in this classless act if it were done by a political enemy, you should also find it in the classless act of a political friend as it might be the first glimmer you notice of an ethical need by the speaker.

Writers like Jefferson carry a certain cache and to use some of such a famous quote but twist the meaning slightly is using that cache and decieving those who are not watching too closely.

This is the act of swindler. If it does not cause you to take pause, you are taking part. If you participate in a swindle and are not the swindler, you have been swindled.

 

[Bullfighter]

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)

He didn't want to offend the godless Latinos that invade the US. What is so suprizing about that? He probably should have include stuff about "Sante Muerte" (Saint Death) and "Jesus Malverde"(the Narco Saint) to make them feel better.

 

[Si modo]

From a man who said of his plans to redistribute the wealth that he failed to 'break free from the essential constraints' in the U.S. Constitution, I am not surprised.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yet we have another failed post

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Progressive/Revolutionaries do this so it will be easier to edit much of Americas past. They high light the bad things but edit the things that are great about America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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)

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.

Nothing has changed, only been enhanced with more control over the collective.

OMG! We are being assimilated into the collective!
http://i55.tinypic.com/359eq7k.jpg

I take it you are a product of govenment schools, and never bothered to obtain a library card.

Otherwise, the resonance with earlier Progressives would have struck, even you, as ironic.

1. . “While we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America….Jefferson said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible…But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.” RJ Pestritto, “Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism,” p.255

2. Herbert Croly, the intellectual link between Wilson and FDR, and founding editor of ‘The New Republic,’ wrote ‘The Promise of American Life,’ : The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

3. The American elites, including much of FDR’s ‘Brain Trust’ made the pilgrimage to Moscow and spoke glowingly of the Soviet experiment. The economist and originator of the expression ‘New Deal,’ explained how, in the Soviet Union the all-caring state “was informed by battalions of statistics” and led by Communist Party officials who need “no further incentive than the burning zeal to create a new heaven and a new earth which flames in the breast of every good Communist.” Lewis S. Feuer, “American Travelers in the Soviet Union, 1917-1932” American Quarterly 14, no. 2, pt. 1, Summer 1962.

4. Charles Beard, historian whose radical re-evaluation of the founding fathers of the United States, who he believed were more motivated by economics than by philosophical principles, was enamored by Mussolini’s corporatism, which used the force of the state to unify capitalists and laborers.

5. At its core, fascism is the view that every element of society must work together in spiritual union toward the same goals at the behest of the state. One can see it defined in Mussolini's own summary of the Fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State) MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM
(emphasis mine throughout)

So, my easily-led friend, you statement had the wrong final word; it should be individual rather than collective:

"Nothing has changed, only been enhanced with more control over the [individual]."

This, due to Progressives, and the'Easily-Led-Battalion.'

Fight on: chains become you.

 

[midcan5]

What you people fail to understand. Is that the insertion of the creator line in the Constitution was not about trying to make people believe in GOD. it was a way of saying our rights come from a place you can not touch. No man can take them away. Plain and simple.

You obviously were born yesterday, may I suggest a bit of history. Gawd can be used for the best man can do and the worst evil man can do. Nothing magical follows by using creator in a speech or as history shows in the preamble.


"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Not to quibble, but "liberals and conservatives believed that rights belonged to the individual at one time." is not the case. It is Classical Liberals to which you refer; the Founders. The term applies to today's conservatives.

John Dewey stole the term 'liberal' when folks rebelled against his Progressives.
“Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Ibid.


"conservatives coming down on the side of more state power to abridge rights."
Elucidate?
As this stands, it is untrue.
Unless you are comparing federal to state in the sense that Progressives were ofthe barred from grabing more power by state courts...
TR actually railed against said state courts, and it cost him the support of conservative Republicans in 1920.
See James Chace, "1912."


"He [TR] also challenged the sincerity of the opponents of federal regulation: "There has been a curious revival of the doctrine of State rights . . . by the people who know that the States cannot . . . control the corporations."

"On 21 February 1912 the Colonel announced that his hat "is in the ring." He then embittered conservatives irreparably by endorsing the recall of state judicial decisions involving constitutional interpretation."
About Theodore Roosevelt


"...how progressives have managed to turn the debate on its head so quickly..."
First, it's near 150 years...and second, it required the control of the judiciary and the fourth estate.

 

[geauxtohell]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

obama is a man of mystery, he is an empty suit and can be anything that he wants to be, at any given time depending on who is the majority in the crowd.

 

[Stephanie]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

what the hell does this have to do with this thread?

and nobody has to switch off an on anything about Obama, the man is pure hate and Evil.
and the American people are starting to see this.

 

[geauxtohell]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

what the hell does this have to do with this thread?

and nobody has to switch off an on anything about Obama, the man is pure hate and Evil.
and the American people are starting to see this.

Why are you guys whining about him leaving out the term "creator" again?

 

[Stephanie]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

what the hell does this have to do with this thread?

and nobody has to switch off an on anything about Obama, the man is pure hate and Evil.
and the American people are starting to see this.

Why are you guys whining about him leaving out the term "creator" again?

good grief, you "really" aren't this DENSE?

 

[geauxtohell]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

obama is a man of mystery, he is an empty suit and can be anything that he wants to be, at any given time depending on who is the majority in the crowd.

You all obviously think that, which makes your paranoid rants even more funny.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, are you all switching off the "Obama is a Muslim" slander and now going for the "Obama is an athiest" line?

Watching you guys try and work your hyperbole out is too funny.

obama is a man of mystery, he is an empty suit and can be anything that he wants to be, at any given time depending on who is the majority in the crowd.

You all obviously think that, which makes your paranoid rants even more funny.

Alinsky rule five played nicely. ridicule and denial of the truth does not make the other person paranoid

 

[code1211]

What you people fail to understand. Is that the insertion of the creator line in the Constitution was not about trying to make people believe in GOD. it was a way of saying our rights come from a place you can not touch. No man can take them away. Plain and simple.

You obviously were born yesterday, may I suggest a bit of history. Gawd can be used for the best man can do and the worst evil man can do. Nothing magical follows by using creator in a speech or as history shows in the preamble.


"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

I was reading Baldwin's work in school which was in the 70's, about a generation ago. Maybe two.

The Founders, as is stated in the post to which you responded, say that the rights are endowed by a power higher than the Government. This makes the government not the giver of but the protector of those rights. As such, the government has no power to remove these rights.

I'm not sure what you are asking to have done. Would you have us take these rights away from those who have them or expand them to include those who do not?

 

[geauxtohell]

obama is a man of mystery, he is an empty suit and can be anything that he wants to be, at any given time depending on who is the majority in the crowd.

You all obviously think that, which makes your paranoid rants even more funny.

Alinsky rule five played nicely. ridicule and denial of the truth does not make the other person paranoid

Blah, blah, blah, Alinsky blah, blah, blah.

I've never read Alinsky nor do I care about it. The fact that Obama is all things evil to you, even when the positions contradict each other, shows you to be paranoid.

 

[geauxtohell]

what the hell does this have to do with this thread?

and nobody has to switch off an on anything about Obama, the man is pure hate and Evil.
and the American people are starting to see this.

Why are you guys whining about him leaving out the term "creator" again?

good grief, you "really" aren't this DENSE?

Why don't you answer the question?