A third time?

[JimR-OCDS]

AMDG

If we have rights and they are inalienable, then where'd we get them? Just someone saying so? From the government? Then those rights can't be inalienable.

Inalienable rights are ours regardless of where we believe they came from.

An atheist can not tell us that we don't have these rights because in his mind, God doesn't exist.

Just as a believer can't tell an atheist those rights don't apply to atheist.

Those rights exist regardless of our religious beliefs.

Really? How do we know? Just his word? Remember, he had all his records sealed. It was the first thing he did once elected.

Harvard list the top graduates of the class publicly. It wasn't Obama who put out the info about graduating top in his class, but others who investigated his credentials.

And we know this, how? Oh, right, he said so and politicians never misinform us or "gild the lily" when they are trying to be elected to an office.

Until you can prove he's lying, it is our responsibility as Christians to accept his word in charity.

If you are saying he's lying, the burden of proof is yours, not his.

But this is about how three times now, the Declaration of Independence has been misquoted (purposely?)

'

I don't know why he eliminates the "creator" part of the DOI and you don't either.

Your hatred of Obama blinds your objectivity and the constant posting of threads with hatefulness, presents a poor Christian image for this forum.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

Your hatred of Obama blinds your objectivity and the constant posting of threads with hatefulness, presents a poor Christian image for this forum.

You have repeatedly accused me of this. You need to stop. It is hardly charitable. Besides, I am like Gandhi here. I don't "hate" him, I just want him to stop hurting our country.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You have repeatedly accused me of this. You need to stop. It is hardly charitable. Besides, I am like Gandhi here. I don't "hate" him, I just want him to stop hurting our country.

Your actions says it all.

Sorry, but its how it comes across.

You're the one opening threads criticising the president unjustily.

If you want to change that, then change how you're posting.


Jim

 

[AMDG]

You're the one opening threads criticising the president unjustily.

Another untruth. Not very Christian of you.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Another untruth. Not very Christian of you.

Call me a liar, but, who opened this thread?



Jim

 

[AMDG]

Call me a liar, but, who opened this thread?

If you noticed the title of this thread, it was a question. Later on links were introduced to back up the story (so nothing was "unjustified"). The links are government links of the transcript of the speeches, so I doubt you can object to those as you have in my previous links citing the "proofs" you ask.

Oh, and about the IOUs, there's this link:

Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times

Again the link is not "broken" for me.

 

[Alicia_M]

The last I could find was a video from Fox news. The video also appears on the first site AMGD posted from cnsnews. Realizing that not all accept Fox as a newscource, I still intend to pass the link along to the OP so that everyone might see the President speaking in action. Naturally, there are other comments tied with the videos; however, when the president speaks, the words are his own.

This quote is taken from AMGD's original web address to the cnsnews article:

"When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

 

[Alicia_M]

possible
could just be that he is fairly secular
many people are are of the mindset that religion is a personal thing and in public things like human rights and stuff like that religion has no place

now I am not of this mindset and i think that puts human rights on shaky ground

True, Rhamiel. He could be fairly secular. Borrowing a catch phrase from Forest Gump, “Secular is as secular does.” Not trying to be flippant with this statement, it only implies that secularism can only be judged by its actions. Unfortunately, now the head leader of the “secular” U.S.A is editing the Declaration of Independence. My civics may be a bit rusty, but from the last bit of studying: changing the way the country was founded is no easy task. The protections were put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the general populace from tyrannical leaders. Am I accusing Obama of being a tyrant? Not necessarily. However, I do wonder about the path he’s walking because giving total power to the government threatens human rights.

As president, Obama represents believers and athiest. We have inalianable rights whether you believe in God or not, which is why he may have been leaving out the reference to the creator.

I definitely agree that every person has been born, inherit with certain inalienable rights by their Creator rather they choose to recognize Him or not. Wording omissions, though, weren’t even considered as the Declaration was published. The rhetoric contained therein was why early Americans gave up their lives. Today, they “fight” over their rights in the elections, but (and I say this not to downplay voting, merely as contrast) they no longer shed blood for those basic beliefs. Will citizens who do not believe in God be offended by the usage of “by their Creator?” You betcha.

These type of things are going to continue in our society.

Food for thought, that. We watch and know that certain things come to pass, but they aren’t to inspire us toward fear. (Not judging your comment as if you fear or no; I agree.)

He is remaking the Declaration of Independence...
Just as he is remaking the Constitution to suit his own agenda.

Thankfully, the people have the final say when it comes to the Constitution. Three-quarters of the states have to vote yea for an amendment. Frustrating that I can’t post links yet because the executive branch of the government has been collecting more and more power, even before Obama’s reign. As an aside, Czars? This just blows my mind.

Christianity is looked down upon by the "Liberal elite" Have you ever heard Bill Marr speak about Christians? How about the comment Obama made referring to rural folks as" Clinging to guns and religion" From the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Well, if we were to read the wording carefully for the right to bear arms, the forefathers might be branded terrorists seeing as though the intention was meant as a measure for the people to rise up should the government take away their liberties. I know that fanatics have misused this intent as a reason to commit terrible acts. Giving up rights because of fear? Ick.

Three times does seem a bit more than just an accident. BTW, if we have any rights at all, they must come from our Creator, so just who does he think endows man with those inalienable rights, if not the Creator?)

Three times does seem like more than an accident.

Considering the fact that he graduated in the top of his class from Harvard Law, and law firms from all over the US were trying to recruit him with huge salary offers,

I doubt he is ignorant of the wording contained within the Declaration of Independence.

and instead he took the low paying job working for an organization that serves the poor, he behaves more Christ-like than those who attack him for his religious beliefs. In fact, in comparison, such people are what are known as, hypocrites.

All of us should show what lies inside the heart. Do I *think* Obama cares about America? Yes. He ran for president and won the election.
　
　

 

[Rhamiel]

being part of the chicago political machine is not being Christlike

 

[stone]

Heard that President Obama has omitted the Creator (that men have inalienable rights from their Creator) when quoting from the Declaration yet again? For Pete's sake, why would he do that yet again after the furor from the last two times he did it? This is weird.

For those wondering where I got this:

It's a CNSNews.com story--Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again
Tuesday, October 19, 2010

he is satan

 

[JoabAnias]

Our rights come from him.

 

[SolomonVII]

The last I could find was a video from Fox news. The video also appears on the first site AMGD posted from cnsnews. Realizing that not all accept Fox as a newscource, I still intend to pass the link along to the OP so that everyone might see the President speaking in action. Naturally, there are other comments tied with the videos; however, when the president speaks, the words are his own.

This quote is taken from AMGD's original web address to the cnsnews article:

When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

Note how Robert Gibbs doesn't bother to answer the question.
Like inalienable rights, truth comes from God too.

The White House believe in neither.

 

[JoabAnias]

When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

Note how Robert Gibbs doesn't bother to answer the question.
Like inalienable rights, truth comes from God too.

The White House believe in neither.

In my e-mail today:

OBAMA:

RIGHTS STEM FROM THE STATE​

​

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Obama's speech on October 18 at a fundraising dinner:​

For the second time this fall, President Obama has quoted from the Declaration of Independence, omitting any reference to God. In Rockville, Maryland on Monday, he spoke of "inalienable rights," mentioning that "all men are created equal," but omitted what comes after this phrase: namely, he did not say "that they are endowed by their Creator" with these unalienable rights.​

On September 15, after Obama omitted the same words before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (there are four references to God in the Declaration), I faulted his speech writers but defended the president by saying he should "be given a pass." I can no longer do so: President Obama, it is painfully obvious, does not believe that individual rights are given to us by God.​

The most dramatic historical achievement of the American Revolution was the insistence of the Founders that the state is not the source of our rights. What the state grants, it can take away. We saw this most strikingly under the Soviets: the Soviet Constitution was a marvelous tribute to human liberty, the only problem being that it made the state the origin of individual rights. By declaring God to be the origin of rights, the Founders deliberately awarded a subordinate role to government.​

President Obama is the first president in American history not to acknowledge that all rights stem from God. Given that all prepared presidential speeches are written and vetted by many people, and that he was roundly criticized last month for this same infraction, it is only fair to conclude that this was not a mistake. This was deliberate. ​

 

[AMDG]

For any that thought that I had only noted two times that obama misquoted the Declaration (and so was remiss and somehow my claim was "unjustified") Alicia sent this other link from the September 22 government transcript:

Remarks by the President at a DCCC/DSCC Dinner | The White House.

That makes the three dates that I was asking about. (Thanks again Alicia.)

 

[Alicia_M]

AMDG: you're welcome. Glad I could assist.

When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Tuesday, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester. But I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

Note how Robert Gibbs doesn't bother to answer the question.
Like inalienable rights, truth comes from God too.

The White House believe in neither.

A quote taken from AMGD’s original cnsnews link:

“After that speech and questions about the non-mention of “creator,” the White House, as reported Sept. 20 by Fox News’ Bret Baier, ‘said that President Obama went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake.’”

Bolding is my own. Sorry, had my head stuck in research, so I missed this at first. The word “reported” in the above quote contains a link to the video--it leads to the Fox web news site. One (the president) who is so educated about the law (as presented by other posters) is apt to err, but three times? I seriously doubt it. No argument from my side; I just didn’t want it to seem as if I weren’t presenting the ‘facts’.

Joab, thanks for sharing the email. If I may lift a quote from it?

“What the state grants, it can take away. We saw this most strikingly under the Soviets: the Soviet Constitution was a marvelous tribute to human liberty, the only problem being that it made the state the origin of individual rights. By declaring God to be the origin of rights, the Founders deliberately awarded a subordinate role to government.”

Bolding, again, is my own. Exactly why investing too much power in one area is dangerous. We’ve seen it cycle through history with devastating effect. Some of us have lived it. It shouldn’t be revisited.


　
　

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Because he's doesn't believe in the Creator.

We cannot know that for absolute certainty, unless God has revealed it by special revelation or Obama has confessed that he does not believe in a Creator. To say otherwise is pure calumny at worst; speculation at best.

(And I am not lackey of Obama's so don't worry. I am rather opposed to his regime and his positions, but I try to espouse and view things with firm basis, rather than emotionalism or pure sensationalism.)

 

[SolomonVII]

......


... One (the president) who is so educated about the law (as presented by other posters) is apt to err, but three times? I seriously doubt it. No argument from my side; I just didn’t want it to seem as if I weren’t presenting the ‘facts’.


..... Exactly why investing too much power in one area is dangerous. We’ve seen it cycle through history with devastating effect. Some of us have lived it. It shouldn’t be revisited......
　

The first time may have been an oversight. But the second time after all the ado, and now the third, maybe even a fourth?

No way. This historical revisionism is deliberate. I don't even know if it is political. This most likely is getting to the heart of what Obama believes.
There are many things he shows no interest in, and merely votes present. Some things though, like the Born Alive Act, he really goes to bat for, even if there is no political gain to be made.

There is no political gain to be made here. It is too abstract to either gain or even detract voters.

And it is not strictly a matter of atheism and disbelief in God. Even an American atheist can see the reasons for placing rights from coming from some transcendant hypothetical place above the dictates of a government.

This is a legal matter more than a theological one. Jefferson wrote this, and he was no raging theocrat either, but he understood the revolutionary import of placing an individuals rights above that of the "Divine Right of Kings".
This evidently is something that Obama's legal mind rejects. He does not want our rights defined by a transcendent Creator. On this point he remains adamant, once, twice, three times, maybe even four.

He is not specifically rejecting God then.Theocracies of the past and present have had no problem with placing all authority into the pope, the king the caliph, the ayatollah.
What he is rejecting is the American ideal that the will of the governed is of a higher order than the will of the government.

He is in effect therefore rejecting the American Revolution itself.

This was no third or fourth mistake. It is preposterous to believe that it could be.
This is no political ploy either, for truly there is nothing to be gained or maybe even lost in this omission.
This is an indication of what Obama truly believes.

Now I think that Obama finds the American people, 'clinging to their guns and religion' as they do, to be a troublesome lot. They are prone to do 'crazy things' like go to war against Iraq on account of 9/11. They are unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable.
He is deeply uncomfortable with this American trait, and would feel a lot better if they were more passive, more obedient to the powers that be, more malleable by the elites and the intelligensia that he belongs to—more like the Europeans seem to be, for instance.

He know that this phrase above all others is what makes the American people truly free and unfettered, and this is what he is rejecting.

The fact is that Obama's revising of the Declaration was purposive. It was not accidental or even politically astute.

My above opinion as to why is based on that indisputable fact. That is the only thing that makes sense to me as to why.

 

[Fantine]

Heard that President Obama has omitted the Creator (that men have inalienable rights from their Creator) when quoting from the Declaration yet again? For Pete's sake, why would he do that yet again after the furor from the last two times he did it? This is weird.

For those wondering where I got this:

It's a CNSNews.com story--Obama Strips the 'Creator' from Declaration of Independence -- Again
Tuesday, October 19, 2010

It's so good to know that conservatives are hanging on to Obama's every word.

Wonder of wonders, they may learn something.

(This comment is a generalization and not directed at any specific individuals.)

 

[AMDG]

Wonder of wonders, they may learn something.

Really? From someone who is supposed to be so smart and yet purposely misquotes the Declaration perhaps in the hopes of convincing others that if their rights are inalienable they don't have to come from somewhere (and the Founders said that those rights come from the Creator)? Sounds more like he needs to learn a good deal rather than continue to try to mislead. Guess I'm just another one of those people (like most of the American people who are being disregarded) who clings to his "God".

 

[Fantine]

Better Obama than some hypocritical pawn of the religious right who pulls out his religion like a prop when it's convenient.