Obama skips the “by our Creator” part quoting Declaration of Independence

I’m not even sure if TOTUS was involved in this one. During a Congressional Hispanic Caucus event, President Obama quoted directly from the Declaration of Independence, yet he just skipped the part about our Creator, who endowed us certain inalienable rights … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mentioned at the end of last week, this mis-quote is Hot Air’s Obamateurism of the Week. I’ve elected to include the full remarks of the president’s speech below and you’ll find the mis-quote just after the 22 minute mark (video below).

Frank Ross at Big Journalism and Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit also noted the mis-quote. Be it intentional or a mistake, it’s the perception of this screw-up that matters. Maybe that’s why the President headed to church on Sunday, and even took Communion at St. John’s Episcopal Church?

If you want to watch the entire thing, a good portion of the speech was you best remember who is on your side and who is against you. The entire event was an attack on Republicans, conservatives and libertarians. He also has a warped view of American history. He’s fighting to ensure Latino voters keep pulling the levers for Democrats.

This guy is the ultimate divider in America right now.

It’s bad enough he skipped the part about our Creator endowing us with those inalienable rights, but he has the guts to list entitlements provided by the federal government – all designed to steal liberty and property from one and give to another – and then quote the Declaration of Independence a few moments later?

25 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I put it down to being yet another Øbamateurism.  The manufactured minority group called "hispanic" is usually considered to be pretty strongly Christian, if not Catholic.

     

    Or maybe he thinks HE is "the creator".  😉

  2. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    It's a little-known fact that TOTUS is a teleprompter of faith.  That's why he keeps getting President Obama to mess up on his speeches.  If you remember, he did a sterling job for President Bush, a man of faith and integrity.  This explains the startling, and unexpected, fact that Bush made better speeches than Obama 🙂 🙂

  3. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Wow, President Barak H. Obama "skips" a certain part of the Declaration of Independence "by our creator", yet he and his family yesterday went to church. Hmmmmmmm. Something is STRANGE here.

  4. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    It is called building a Potemkin village out of cathedrals.  Remember how Bill Clinton would dust off a Bible and go to a black church for a photo op every time he had a scandal?

  5. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    It is more profound in the fact that it is not always what he does say as much as what he does NOT say.

     

    Please continuing reading that Constitution, Mr. President, because those "promises" are being broken by our federal government each and every day.

  6. Barry A. A. Dillinge
    Barry A. A. Dillinge says:

    As Jim so eloquently indicated, of course it was on purpose…  If you think that the "most intelligent man in the world" could make a mistake by removing the words "endowed by our Creator" while quoting the Declaration of Independence, then you massively underestimate his very disdain for this sacred parchment, as well as that other "living document", the Constitution.  The cherry on this ice cream sundae is that he and his minions continue to construct more and more bridges and on-ramps for which the Independents will use to cross-over to the right.  I used to worry that we could blow this lead ourselves, but speeches like this will continue to cascade down from the White House, enabling any small errors by the Teapublicans to be washed away like grains of sand.  He just can't help himself.  The worst thing that could happen right now would be for the President to suddenly stop making speeches.  Of course, should that happen, we can always then bank on Mr. Gibbs opening his mouth and inserting his size 12 Birkenstocks!

  7. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

      Obama's "creator" is the U.S. progressive machine that has been influencing his life since birth, all the way through his higher education, into his theology, and his politics.

      That is why he paused and stumbled. He knows the "creator" mentioned in the preamble and his creator are not compatible

  8. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    'Bush made better speeches than Obama"-Gillie 'cause I love you and respect you so much, I just know that that was tongue in cheek!

    "Do you have blacks, too?" –to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001

    "For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." –Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on –shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." –Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

    know what-i do miss him…. need to laugh more.

     

     

     

  9. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    You know, now that I wonder some more about this omission I have come to a possible realization:  Everyone debates the president's religious affiliation and some conspire that he is a Moslem.  But this simple avoidance of "by our Creator" makes me think he is an Atheist.  Could attending church this past Sunday just be a false front?

  10. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    chris: maybe Gillie simply meant better in terms of more accurate.

     

    And now, to be "fair and balanced":

     

    Mixes up "advice" and "advise".  April 21, 2009: After receiving a heart-felt letter from Michael Powers, who criticized the president for his smoking habit, Obama hand-writes a response, "Michael — Thanks so much for the wonderful letter, and the good advise …"  Maybe that is why he didn't write much in the HLR.

     

    The "Austrian" language?  April 4, 2009: In response to a question asking what he learned from European leaders, Obama responds, "It was … interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing … "  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr7zhnctF4c&fe… (as good as "Greecians"?)

    Remember the time he couldn't remember his speech when the teleprompter went out of whack (even "dreaded" Palin was able to get past that one!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU&fe

    "57 states"?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws&fe

    Once again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO3QpcpJ9AI&fe

    He once claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

    A speech on speaking a second language (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdxP85ouT9c). Bush is fluent in Spanish.  Øbama is fluent in doublespeak.

    Numerous geography flubs.  Didn't know Afghanis don't speak Arabic.  Bowing and scraping to Arab kings and Japanese emperors.

    And the list goes on…. (and this is after only two year or so from the great orator!)

    Can we take the "hate Bush" blinders off and give both guys a break because it ain't easy up there in the spotlight?

  11. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    This post is NOT about screwing up a sentence or two during a campaign spot. It's specific to President Obama skipping the "Creator" portion of the Declaration of Independence. Tit for tat is BORING… We all know the history.

  12. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Sorry, Steve.  Just edit out everything except the first and last sentences.

     

    What is this "tat" and where do you get some?  😉

  13. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    I have to jump in here. Nobody is "destroying the Christian faith". There are no laws or regulations preventing anybody from going to church and worshipping as they see fit. Nobody is stopping anybody from believing anything, no matter how many comedians make jokes about it. The government isn't coming into your churches and shutting them down. Most of the country is Christian and a great deal of them are Democrats so when you say that Democrats "do everything possible to destroy the Christian faith", I don't know what doomsday scenario you're describing but it doesn't appear to be happening in reality. Would it matter if Obama was an atheist, by the way? I'm not sure if it was brought up for a reason. As always, thanks. I love the back and forth here.

     

  14. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    @HamHocks: For me, the point is that our rights – life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness – are inalienable, endowed by our Creator. Many feel over the past 80 years, there has been a shift to the point where more "rights" are granted by the state. (Right to health care, clean water, a good education, a job…)

    Many liberals don't like the "Creator" part since then they have no power concerning those rights. If granted by the Creator, they can not be taken away. If granted by the state, they can be taken away. That's a lot of power to hold over people.

    To be completely fair to Obama and the dictionary – he did use the world inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred. Yet, he – and the federal/state governments in general – continue to promote "redistribution of wealth" with statements like "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." You snub the Declaration of Independence when you say something like that.

  15. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    Many liberals don’t like the “Creator”part

    Steve, I have to say this is the first time you have disappointed me. I never thought you bought into that crap here that is posted by the others insinuating that only the hard right are believers, are patriotic, etc. etc.

     

  16. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    OK – maybe "many" was the incorrect word. Maybe just leave off the liberal reference and say "many" people? That is certainly the truth, and I think it does make it easier for statists to govern the way they prefer (think central planning) since in their mind most of your "rights" are granted by the state instead of a Creator.

  17. chris-os
    chris-os says:

    wow

    umm…What about Ghandi? He was hindu. What about Hitler? He was christian too. So was Stalin. Which of those values do you support?

    And, speaking of having it both ways-as far as the "Christian Right, Tea P'ers: you want less government control over citizens, but yet you want to legislate on moral issues. YOU DO NOT want Socialism and universal health care coverage, but yet say the government needs to keep it's hands-off Social Security and Medicare. YOU say no more spending, spending, spending by the government and we need to balance the budget, but yet you do not oppose the wars and do oppose raising taxes.

    There are several other contradictions, but I am just so amazed how you do not see the contradictions in your own messages.

     

  18. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    Contradictions? There certainly may be some, but if you query the Tea Party members, their main issue is the spending at the federal level. Conservatives are completely fine when it comes to allowing states to collect taxes and provide programs and services. There is really no contradiction there. Let the states compete to find the best solutions.

    As for moral issues, some issues revolve around state voters being overruled by activist judges, which results (as an example) in suggesting a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Gay marriage was routinely shot down by a 2 to 1 vote across the country in individual states … then come the threats, posting contributions online with convenient Google maps, and the activist judges overturning law.

    That's not the way the system is supposed to work … but if they are going to do that … you're going to have some states going the (state) Constitutional amendment route.

  19. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Hi again. Let's clear this up. The Christian faith is safe as it has always been. The way parties enact their policies may (to some people) run against some of the values held by people of a religion, but still don't impede on that religion's freedoms. When you start injecting the values of a religion into ideas for public policy , it's easy to start seeing opposition to those policies as an attempt to stifle said religion. It isn't. We need to keep this clear. The faith will always be protected by our Constitution. A policy based on the faith isn't.

    Just to follow up on the gay marriage issue you guys were discussing, civil rights aren't up for majority rule. That's why they're called civil rights. The judge who overrode that ruling as unconstitutional was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.

     

  20. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    VictimsRevenge,

    If you can just lay out the biggest rifts between the teachings of Jesus and the ideals of the "Socialists" you're referring to, I'll be able to respond. I need to know your interpretation of each. Thanks.

  21. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Me again. Steve, we both know the "made enough money" comment is out of context. He said "you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service" immediately after that. He never said anything about limiting anybody's earnings. I just wanted to point that out. It's always better to consider a conversation than a sentence pulled out of one.

  22. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    @HamHocks … Oh no … don't try to twist it. He certainly did say that at some point, he thinks people have made enough money. "Now, what we’re doing — I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."

    So he does not like the current state of affairs? Maybe he thinks the government should decide if you're providing a good product or service?

    Congress and President Obama certainly did not think lending institutions were providing a good product or service when it comes to the student loan market … so they just took it over. What will happen to those jobs? What will happen to tuition prices in the future? We'll see… He thought they were "making too much" as a "middle man" so they just took it over … that's what happened.

  23. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Victims,

    Forgive me, but you're still not being specific. To say "The Democrats hold socialism up as their model, so justice is what they say it is, and government replaces religion" says nothing. I want to talk about Democratic policy in comparison to the teachings of Christ, not buzz worded generalizations of an entire party. What truly socialist policies are you referring to? Let's put them under the microscope and see if they meet the criteria you laid out. Just saying "these social programs" doesn't allow for any actual comparison.

    And, on a separate note, morals are already subjective. That has nothing to do with the ruling party.

     

  24. HamHocks
    HamHocks says:

    Victims,

    Well, I guess that's a clean cut way to not have to actually account for anything you've said. I understand that you think you were clear enough, but that's because you're apparently happy to paint things with a broad, generalizing brush when you're talking about people who don't agree with you (as evidenced by your completely unreasonable assessment of my "faith" or lack thereof despite knowing absolutely nothing about me).

    My request was not an unreasonable one. You insisted that the "socialist" Democratic policies ran against the grain of Christianity. All I asked for was some examples and you chose instead to rest on your opening assertion and make some personal assumptions about my morality.  I'm sorry if I assumed you were able to explain your point with specifics, but that's how a productive conversation works. If you just wanted to hop in and throw a few bombs at the Democrats, I won't press you for any more information.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] me explain what I was referring to in yesterday’s post concerning President Obama’s speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. I […]

Comments are closed.