Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Again Omits ‘Creator’ When Speaking of ‘Inalienable Rights’
CNSnews ^ | September 27, 2010 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Posted on 09/28/2010 10:31:59 AM PDT by opentalk

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: MrB

In other words, the people at the low end are defective.


41 posted on 09/28/2010 11:07:57 AM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the minority? A: They're complaining about the deficit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
many times, what he says makes more sense if you consider his message is to a different audience than traditional America.
42 posted on 09/28/2010 11:09:18 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Gotta work on that. If I am gonna walk the nerdy walk, I gotta talk the nerdy talk.


43 posted on 09/28/2010 11:09:45 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

He doen’t mention it because he thinks it is redundant to talk about ones self. I am surprised he hasn’t changed it from Creator to I or me yet.


44 posted on 09/28/2010 11:13:18 AM PDT by sniper63 (I am the leader of the TEA Party, I, myself am the leader of me, myself for I am the TEA Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Obama needs to exercise his inalienable right to move out of government housing.


45 posted on 09/28/2010 11:19:00 AM PDT by italybub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
“...and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity,...”

He is so arrogant.

The "we" -- Obama,czars, Kagan, progressives,

46 posted on 09/28/2010 11:21:32 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

“I, uh, have been criticized for referring to myself too many times so, uh I have, er, omitted the creator reference from my remarks so it doesn’t happen again. You are now free to worship me around the country.”


47 posted on 09/28/2010 11:23:21 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("It's amazing, A man who has such large ears could be so tone deaf" Rush Limbaugh 9/8/10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

He reportedly has written about his opposition to the language in the Constitution as well.

It is not an “accident”, it is a redacting of one of our founding documents.

He’s here to toss it on the scrap pile of history.


48 posted on 09/28/2010 11:24:23 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Ask yourself,where does Saudi Arabia fit on a scale of "passive" to "moderate" to "extremist" Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

“The same people that you meet going up are the same people that you meet going down...”


49 posted on 09/28/2010 11:26:39 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Ask yourself,where does Saudi Arabia fit on a scale of "passive" to "moderate" to "extremist" Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I’m still waiting for the day that someone figures out that the Declaration of Independence uses unalienable, not inalienable.


50 posted on 09/28/2010 11:33:37 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

As far as BO is concerned, rights come from the government; natural law has no application.


51 posted on 09/28/2010 11:36:30 AM PDT by hsrazorback1 (Seek truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
He really misses the whole point doesn’t he? That whole natural rights argument just escapes him - the so-called ‘law professor.’

On the contrary - I think he gets it completely. If our rights come from either our Creator or from our nature, then they are truly "inalienable". This means that our rights cannot be taken away and that they precede any form of social organization.

To collectivists generally (and Obama specifically), rights come from the government, meaning they are subject to the will, intentions and needs of others. I believe Obama's continued use of the word "inalienable" is gratuitous; he either does not understand what it truly means, or more likely uses it for rhetorical effect.

52 posted on 09/28/2010 11:39:34 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I know one thing for sure, my rights don’t come from an illegal alien, Barry.


53 posted on 09/28/2010 11:42:52 AM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Obama doesn’t believe we have rights.

There’s nothing in Islam that recognizes the concept.

This is just part of the marketing message his staff provides for him.


54 posted on 09/28/2010 11:43:35 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Would the antiCHRIST acknowledge a CREATOR?

Yes. The anti-Christ would even give sermons in a Church, if he thought it would help him corrupt some more souls.

When the anti-Christ comes, it won't so much be his power, as the evil he can stir up in lost souls, that will cause the most damage.

55 posted on 09/28/2010 11:47:16 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

The reason he doesn’t say GOD is because to Obama, GOD is the Christian name.

He would use ALLAH in it’s place, but he knows the public would react. So... he just leaves it out.


56 posted on 09/28/2010 11:49:31 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
On the contrary - I think he gets it completely.

Yes he does. Leaving GOD out, and substituting 'inalienable' was no mistake.

57 posted on 09/28/2010 11:52:07 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

He doesn’t believe the term “inalienable” either -

because he believes that the “smart people” should be able to abrogate others’ rights at will if it serves “the greater good”.


58 posted on 09/28/2010 11:53:47 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

This guy really is a piece of work. You can always count on Barry to do or say the wrong thing.


59 posted on 09/28/2010 11:54:30 AM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
WHO will it be that stands up and shouts, “Creator!” the next time obozo opens his mouth to speak about “Inalienable
Rights?”

Stand up and shout it out! “Creator!”

And the next time obozo or any of his ilk lies, (you'll have plenty of opportunities here), WHO will it be that stands up and shouts out, “YOU LIE!”

Get in their faces.

60 posted on 09/28/2010 12:31:08 PM PDT by itssme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson