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

[code1211]

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?

Because:
a. He used a quote and did not attribute.
b. He changed the quote ever so lightly as to steal the cache but twist the meaning.
c. Through the plageurism and the unnannounced editing, he disingenuously stole the cache, twisted the meaning and tried again to direct his under educated sheeple into a belief system that he finds to be advantageous to his goals.

As he continuously tries to re-write history into something that he wishes it was but was not, he reveals his own inadequacy and also his willingness to lead based on deception, lies and con man tactics.

I think that sums up the reasons I did not like it. Others will have to respond on their own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Too bad I can't add another rep....


But "... expand them to include those who do not?"
This is a null set.

Since the Creator, by definition, created all people, all have inalienable rights.

Probably the motivation for the thinking of many neocons....
and, interestingly, the early Progressives whose belief in a necessary imperialism was based on raising 'lesser' peoples to their level. Wilson in particular was very religious.

 

[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?

Because:
a. He used a quote and did not attribute.
b. He changed the quote ever so lightly as to steal the cache but twist the meaning.
c. Through the plageurism and the unnannounced editing, he disingenuously stole the cache, twisted the meaning and tried again to direct his under educated sheeple into a belief system that he finds to be advantageous to his goals.

As he continuously tries to re-write history into something that he wishes it was but was not, he reveals his own inadequacy and also his willingness to lead based on deception, lies and con man tactics.

I think that sums up the reasons I did not like it. Others will have to respond on their own.

Plagiarism? You expected him to toss out citations during his speech? Since when has that been the norm? Furthermore, the preamble is one of the better known documents in American history. It's hilarious that you guys think Obama was trying to pass it off as his own work.

Other than not reading the entire document ver batum, I don't see the outrage. Other than outrage for the sake of outrage.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Too bad I can't add another rep....


But "... expand them to include those who do not?"
This is a null set.

Since the Creator, by definition, created all people, all have inalienable rights.

Probably the motivation for the thinking of many neocons....
and, interestingly, the early Progressives whose belief in a necessary imperialism was based on raising 'lesser' peoples to their level. Wilson in particular was very religious.

Taken care of

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. Well In my opinon, Obama didn't want to mention *A Creator*, because if he did, then he would have to express in his mind which *Creator* he was refering too, the muslim or the real *Christian Creator*.
2. Which he has to hide that he's a muslim, so he self edited his speach.
3. On a side note:, pandering to illegal immagrants is a new low for a sitting President, this is the story that most everyone is over looking, he exclaiming how all the Mexicans owed the liberals because his party is looking after their backs, thier *wetbacks*.
4. The president, is against everything that has made this Nation great legal immigration, and the laws of the land with *Christians Gods Blessings*, to make it Great!!
5. But mostly *The Christian God* who we recognize as the one and only who Guarantee's these rights..
6. As far as Obama standing with *The Christians* in these truths we live by, that ain't never going to change either, he is standing with islam, and always will, because he's a muslim.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[ConHog]

already a thread on this.

Ill say what I said here.

the line about the creator in the Dec was not about making people believe in god. It was saying these rights are above reproach. NO MAN can take them from you because they come from a higher power.

I'm confused as to what the difference is between a god and a higher power?

Oh and as for Obama, who cares? Could have been a simple slip of the teleprompter. And honestly it happens sometimes when you're giving speeches. Anyone who has stood in front of a large crowd and spoke knows this. Seems silly to dissect a politician's every speech looking for errors when you know good and well those errors will be there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You support the President of the United States unilaterally amending and editing the foundation of our country? What possible justification is there for this? Are you simply supporting it because it is something you agree with, or would it be OK for someone who you disagree with to do the same thing?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Its not silly, I know whats in his head, so there!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I almost agree with this.

If Obama wants to eradicate God from his personal life, he is free to do so. He only joined Wright's church for the political connections anyway, so it is not like he ever really cared about Him in the first place. The problem here is that is not what he is doing. By consciously omitting words he has a problem with from a document he is quoting he is trying to change our history, and the ideals upon which our country was founded.

I know this means less than nothing to progressives, but it matters to everyone else. The rights we have do not come from a social contract, and the constitution was not written to protect our rights from people. Our rights exist because we do, and the constitution exist for the sole purpose of protecting our rights from the government. The Constitution of the United States of America is not a social contract, it is a barrier to social contracts dominating our lives.

If more people understood that fundamental concept we would have a lot fewer problems.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

This is why progressives invented the concept of a social contract. It allows them to change the terms of the contrat, our rights, without having to justify it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

To an extent, you are correct. The sad truth is that today's conservatives would be just as happy to toss out rights they do not like as any modern liberal. I do want to clarify here that I am not talking about the grass roots conservative movement, which I think shows signs of maturity beyond anything they are given credit for, but the political class that believe that it is more important to eliminate prostitution than to limit government.

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.

I always enjoy your insights into history.

"conservatives coming down on the side of more state power to abridge rights."
Elucidate?
As this stands, it is untrue.

Conservatives traditionally support restrictions on liquor sales, licensing of businesses, and a draft to support the military, liberals traditionally oppose these. Please note that I am talking about the classical versus the modern definition of these positions. As I said, bith sides defended the rights of the individual, it is just that liberals were much less willing to allow state intrusion than conservatives.

To put this into legal language, conservatives are more willing to accept a rational basis argument, while liberals are more likely to insist on strict scrutiny.

I honestly think we agree about what I am saying, I just didn't phrase it very well yesterday. In my defense, I was exhausted after a very long night, and an earlry morning. It would have been smarter of me not to post at all yesterday, but my time travel machine is broken right now.

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

I really, and I mean really, need to read more history. I cannot believe how contemptuous of it I was in school. In my defense, school tended to reduce history to a dry recitation of dates, ignoring the stuff that really makes it interesting.

"...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.

The struggle has been going on for a long time, but the fact is that in my lifetime liberalism used to stand for individual freedom and distrust of government. Those hippies grew up and abandoned their principles, and now think the government is the answer to our problems. It may have taken over a century of preparation, but it happened in a generation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I never thought he is a Muslim, despite his own claims to the contrary, nor did I believe he is a Christian, despite his own claims. You have to understand that this is just my opinion, as I am not the One in charge of classifying people. Please explain how anything I have said about him is inconsistent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

He is not an empty suit, he is a screen upon which people project their dreams. Quite a few people are waking up to this truth, but not nearly enough.

 

[ConHog]

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.

I never thought he is a Muslim, despite his own claims to the contrary, nor did I believe he is a Christian, despite his own claims. You have to understand that this is just my opinion, as I am not the One in charge of classifying people. Please explain how anything I have said about him is inconsistent.

I think Obama worships himself and no one else. PERIOD.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

To an extent, you are correct. The sad truth is that today's conservatives would be just as happy to toss out rights they do not like as any modern liberal. I do want to clarify here that I am not talking about the grass roots conservative movement, which I think shows signs of maturity beyond anything they are given credit for, but the political class that believe that it is more important to eliminate prostitution than to limit government.

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.

I always enjoy your insights into history.



Conservatives traditionally support restrictions on liquor sales, licensing of businesses, and a draft to support the military, liberals traditionally oppose these. Please note that I am talking about the classical versus the modern definition of these positions. As I said, bith sides defended the rights of the individual, it is just that liberals were much less willing to allow state intrusion than conservatives.

To put this into legal language, conservatives are more willing to accept a rational basis argument, while liberals are more likely to insist on strict scrutiny.

I honestly think we agree about what I am saying, I just didn't phrase it very well yesterday. In my defense, I was exhausted after a very long night, and an earlry morning. It would have been smarter of me not to post at all yesterday, but my time travel machine is broken right now.

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

I really, and I mean really, need to read more history. I cannot believe how contemptuous of it I was in school. In my defense, school tended to reduce history to a dry recitation of dates, ignoring the stuff that really makes it interesting.

"...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.

The struggle has been going on for a long time, but the fact is that in my lifetime liberalism used to stand for individual freedom and distrust of government. Those hippies grew up and abandoned their principles, and now think the government is the answer to our problems. It may have taken over a century of preparation, but it happened in a generation.

Thanks you for a thoughtful and most interesting post.

At the risk of taking too much of your time, I would like to place two earmarks into the time frame...

1. Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100


The theme was given impetus at the time you reference..."...Those hippies grew up and abandoned their principles,...;" actually, they simply moved into journalism and took over the universities...

2. Note the themes of the Port Huron Statement (The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFT-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.): utopia; remaking human nature; anti-capitalism; dissent as the path to an authentic identity. The adversary culture of the modern liberal is based largely on hostility to bourgeois culture and society. Often it includes an alienation from the American system, and a lack of concern to same, as seen in a relaxed view of foreign adversaries, and of crime at home. Lerner, Nagai, and Rothman, “American Elites,” chapter 7.

a. Hatred of American and the West is most clearly seen in American universities, which have “since the 1960’s become the major resources or reservoirs of the adversary culture.” Paul Hollander, “Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-1990,” p. 149

b. Of course, the hostility to America appears wherever intellectual modern liberals appear: museums, art galleries, publishing houses, Hollywood, etc. They bring a conscious effort to alter Americans’ perception of the world and the nation, to weaken or destroy any attachment to Western civilization, fantasizing about past utopias destroyed by whites, i.e., the noble native Americans who lived peacefully and in harmony with nature.

3.Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses.

a. One member gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

b. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks you for a thoughtful and most interesting post.

At the risk of taking too much of your time, I would like to place two earmarks into the time frame...

1. Progressivism as an idea had arisen in the 1880’s, when America was transforming from a largely agricultural country into a burgeoning urban one. But many Americans who had emigrated prior to the Civil War retained a certain moral nostalgia for their American past. While they enjoyed modernization, and wanted to share in the profits of industrial American, and the benefits of city life, they, somewhat paradoxically, yearned for the albeit mythological decency of a rural America.

a. The Progressive movement at first was made up of consumers and taxpayers who were challenging the accumulated wealth and power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. But by 1912, it had become largely farmers and industrial workers seeking relief from the onerous power of the great monopolies. James Chace, “1912,” p.100


The theme was given impetus at the time you reference..."...Those hippies grew up and abandoned their principles,...;" actually, they simply moved into journalism and took over the universities...

2. Note the themes of the Port Huron Statement (The unrest of the sixties was born in June of 1962 at the AFT-CIO camp at Port Huron, Michigan.): utopia; remaking human nature; anti-capitalism; dissent as the path to an authentic identity. The adversary culture of the modern liberal is based largely on hostility to bourgeois culture and society. Often it includes an alienation from the American system, and a lack of concern to same, as seen in a relaxed view of foreign adversaries, and of crime at home. Lerner, Nagai, and Rothman, “American Elites,” chapter 7.

a. Hatred of American and the West is most clearly seen in American universities, which have “since the 1960’s become the major resources or reservoirs of the adversary culture.” Paul Hollander, “Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-1990,” p. 149

b. Of course, the hostility to America appears wherever intellectual modern liberals appear: museums, art galleries, publishing houses, Hollywood, etc. They bring a conscious effort to alter Americans’ perception of the world and the nation, to weaken or destroy any attachment to Western civilization, fantasizing about past utopias destroyed by whites, i.e., the noble native Americans who lived peacefully and in harmony with nature.

3.Port Huron was an early convention of SDS, a small group of alienated, left-wing college students, 59 from 11 campuses.

a. One member gave this prescription: “four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly.” Todd Gitlin, “The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage,” p. 109-110

b. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

You are not taking too much of my time, I enjoy history. Thank you for the additional insight into it, allowing me to amend both my knowledge, and my understanding of our political climate.

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Exactly. More specifically it was a challenge to the "Divine" right of Kings who also claimed God as the source of their power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 don't support Obama removing any words from the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Luckily, he has not done so. The original document is intact and in the same position as it was in 1776 in the national archives.

The "Preamble of the Declaration of Independence"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Maybe we think the President of the United States - especially when he's been touted to us as being so fucking brilliant - should be able to correctly quote one of the most famous lines from one of the United States' founding documents. Given that public speaking is one of the major job requirements of the Presidency - and we were forced to live with eight YEARS of leftist bitching and moaning about Bush making misstatements and misquotes about lesser issues - it doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

On the other hand, this is also a country where large numbers of the populace apparently can't even correctly NAME the founding document Obama misquoted (take a bow, dimwit), so maybe it IS too much to ask for Obama to get the quote right. Birds of a feather, and all that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry bout that,



1. Well In my opinon, Obama didn't want to mention *A Creator*, because if he did, then he would have to express in his mind which *Creator* he was refering too, the muslim or the real *Christian Creator*.
2. Which he has to hide that he's a muslim, so he self edited his speach.
3. On a side note:, pandering to illegal immagrants is a new low for a sitting President, this is the story that most everyone is over looking, he exclaiming how all the Mexicans owed the liberals because his party is looking after their backs, thier *wetbacks*.
4. The president, is against everything that has made this Nation great legal immigration, and the laws of the land with *Christians Gods Blessings*, to make it Great!!
5. But mostly *The Christian God* who we recognize as the one and only who Guarantee's these rights..
6. As far as Obama standing with *The Christians* in these truths we live by, that ain't never going to change either, he is standing with islam, and always will, because he's a muslim.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

In all honesty, I have to say that I sincerely doubt Obama acknowledges ANY power or entity above himself. The more I watch him, the less I think he even notices other people, except as moving props in his life movie.