Obama's Seven 'Creator' Omissions (Part 1)
With Thanksgiving behind us and Christmas before us, we are reminded once again of the integrated ways in which our Creator has had a role in our culture from the beginning. But will it stay that way?
As far back as the Declaration of Independence, our Founders affirmed together, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Almost 235 years later, however, some media caught how President Barack Obama twice omitted the words "by their Creator" when reciting the declaration in speeches over the past several weeks.
But I discovered actually seven presidential "Creator" omissions in just the past few months!
—On Oct. 21 at a rally for Sen. Patty Murray in Seattle:
"None of us would be here if it weren't for that extraordinary leap of faith that had been taken. Thirteen colonies deciding to start a revolution based on an idea that had never been tried before — a government of and by and for the people, a government based on the simple proposition that all men are created equal, that we're endowed with certain inalienable rights."
—On Oct. 18 at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dinner in Rockville, Md.:
"It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
—On Oct. 17 at a reception for Gov. Ted Strickland in Chagrin Fall, Ohio:
"The idea of America has never been easy. The notion of 13 colonies coming together and overthrowing the greatest empire in the world and then drafting a document that says 'we find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights' — that's hard."
—On Sept. 22 at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee/DSCC dinner in New York:
"And what was sustaining us was that sense that ... if we stay true to our values, if we believe that all people are created equal and everybody is endowed with certain inalienable rights and we're going to make those words live and we're going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class..."
—On Sept. 15 at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala in Washington:
"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."
—On Sept. 11 at the Pentagon Memorial in Arlington, Va.:
"For our cause is just. Our spirit is strong. Our resolve is unwavering. Like generations before us, let us come together today and all days to affirm certain inalienable rights, to affirm life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
—On Sept. 10 at the president's news conference at the White House:
"With respect to the mosque in New York, I think I've been pretty clear on my position here, and that is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights; one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."
Thank God that President Obama got it right July 4 from the White House's Blue Room balcony: "And here in a still-young century, let us renew our commitment to stand with those around the world who, like us, still believe in that simple yet revolutionary notion that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."
When Les Kinsolving, WorldNetDaily's correspondent at the White House, asked press secretary Robert Gibbs why Obama had omitted "by their Creator," Gibbs' only explanation was, "I haven't seen the comments, Lester, but I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence."
Is that a reasonable excuse and explanation to you? Is omitting "by their Creator" from direct quotes of the declaration in several speeches a permissible, benign act of the president of the United States?
To me, it is not only what a man includes but also what he omits that tells you everything about him. As Leo F. Buscaglia once said, "things omitted are often more deadly than errors committed."
Even more apropos words the president might heed came from 20th-century American novelist William Faulkner, who said, "Tomorrow night is nothing but one long sleepless wrestle with yesterday's omissions and regrets."
(Next week, I will not only discuss another significant Creator omission overlooked by mainstream media but also inform you about how you can join people like my wife, Gena, and me — including Charlie Daniels, Stephen Baldwin and Tony Dorsett — in ensuring that future presidents and generations are not avoidant or ashamed of the Creator, in whom our Founders trusted in the dawn of our republic.)
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
- Chuck Norris's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
From Obama's Perspective
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:31am.
Maybe it's a self-stylized idolodtry Obama adheres to in his Narcissism which prevents him from recognizing the true One greater than himself.
Then again, it probably is as simple as Obama parsing out religion on rare occasions for maximal self-serving political effect. Having a deep-seated revulsion of American "imperialistic" history, including the White Founders subjugating role, the Creator is not to be praised in Obama's mind, for how can a benevolent Creator allow America to propser given her actions.
Don't tell me 20 years in the pews of the bombastic and demonizing Reverand Wright's church had no effect.
Just trying to look at this from Obama's perspective. These are not mistakes of inattentive commission but ones of purposeful ommision, and ultimately more destructive than the former.
Great article, Mr. Norris. Thank you.
It is hard to believe that a
Submitted by Captain Repus on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 1:47am.
It is hard to believe that a Narcissist like Obammy would intentionally leave out the fact the he had endowed us with those pesky rights. Must have been a teleprompter glitch.
Obama has a
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 7:17am.
Obama has a creator.
It was the MSM.
Silliness
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:44am.
Years ago, a coworker said, "OJ is guilty," then he quickly caught himself and added, "allegedly." I asked him why he felt compelled to add "allegedly?" After a split second, he realized the silliness of it, and then smiled ... "I don't want to sway the jury pool." (We were in Baltimore at the time.)
There are people who believe that constitutional virtues apply to everyone. But that's silly, of course: constitutional principles apply to states and the federal government, not to individuals. Separation of church and state (within reason) is a wonderful principle. It's highly debatable whether any mention of God in public will "impose" a religion on vulnerable citizens, but it's drop dead certain that the principle doesn't apply to individuals. And yet, you'll observe perfectly normal people muzzle themselves about religious topics, because they've come to believe that any mention of religion "imposes" their beliefs on others.
Such people find it hard to talk about their religion in public, precisely because they think they're violating someone else's privacy by doing so. Then when they get into a setting where they have to discuss religious values, they constantly assure you that they are religious -- but they can't bring themselves to say their values publicly. They apologize for their beliefs ... "I believe in Jesus Christ ... but that's just for me! Other people can believe in other things!" (Yeah, like the rest of us were waiting for your permission ... )
I don't know Obama personally. But it strikes me that he's terribly uncomfortable expressing his beliefs in public. He also considers himself an expert on the constitution, steeped in its principles and values. I wonder if he skips over any mention of the Creator or God because he thinks that if he says anything religious, he's sinning against the constitution. He won't discuss religion in public because to do so would "impose" religious sentiments on the audience.
Not just Obama. Reagan left
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:45am.
Not just Obama. Reagan left out the word "creator" as well. So did Calvin Coolidge. I daresay, a thorough Google search would turn up examples where most of our presidents have used the abbreviated quotation. Not sure why. Maybe they were all a little shy about using religious rhetoric. Maybe the phrase was edited out by speechwriters concerned about the "flow."
http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/first_lady__grace_g__coolidge.html
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/11886a.htm
Maybe
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 10:38am.
You could be right. But I've seen Reagan talk about his faith with great ease, and often in "presidential" settings. Can't say I've seen the same from Obama.
As for Coolidge ... I may be getting older, but ...
Yutsnark: Reagan was not
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 5:16pm.
Yutsnark:
Reagan was not giving a "full" quote of that portion of the Declaration of Independence as Obama has on several occasions.
Reagan also goes on to quote MLK and God is not deleted from the quote. Reagan did not avoid the mention of God as Obama has on multiple proscribed repetitive occasions.
You compared apples to oranges.
"Two hundred years, lacking
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 8:35pm.
"Two hundred years, lacking sixteen, have passed since our forefathers proclaimed to the world the truthshs they held self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://books.google.com/books?id=KakPtFqwJ0gC&pg=PA482&lpg=PA482&dq=eisenhower+%22endowed+with+inalienable+rights%22+-obama+-whom&source=bl&ots=iT8clHBBbf&sig=Km3hFYJdBKyufEaBgtkbx05CJUE&hl=en&ei=gJT1TMrWMoGdlgeLrtSMBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=inalienable&f=false
The Coolidge quote is a
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:40pm.
The Coolidge quote is a non-sequitar like Reagan's. Coolidge does not come close to quoting the breadth of the DOI as Obama has.
Calvin Coolidge: “Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.”
Coolidge uses a very circumscribed portion to make a point about consent of the governed as the seat of the elected's powers, not God giving the elected representatives powers to govern. And those powers are relagated to those areas not already covered by inalienable rights, understood as given by God to both politician and the masses at the time.
Eisenhower does quote/paraphrase more of the DOI as Obama has, and herein lies your best opportunity to make your case. Even so, you can not do so cogently or convincingly without ignoring the known histories of the men and the actually words each man said/wrote.
The problem you have with your argument is:
1) There is no credible evidence that Reagan, Eisenhower or Coolidge were questionable concerning their relationship with religion or God. Obama's lifetime of behavior/words gives ample reason to cast doubt.
2) One example from each of three past presidents, two being technically non-comparative in structure, is hardly damning evidence of parity between Obama and the other three. Obama made several speeches within a short period of time, quoting generously from the DOI wherein he purposefully excluded/skipped over God/ the Creator from his speech.
One time, maybe I'll agree with you despite the history of the man. Several times, no, it's not a mistake, it's purposeful.
Ask yourself why Obama omits consistently in such a way.
Stratman, you argue the case
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 9:30am.
Stratman, you argue the case well, and I see your point -- though to me, none of this evidence is "damning." (I don't care about the president's religion, or lack of it.) As for why Obama "omits consistently," see Francisco's post below.
so who created Muhammad?
Submitted by mom_rox on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:16am.
just wondering since Pres. Obama has repeatedly stated that Islam is a "great religion".
Sorry
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 9:17am.
But why is this a problem? You are not living in 1776 anymore, not to mention that it wasn't God who endowed the people with rights, but mankind itself.
It was the Creator and the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/30/2010 - 11:15pm.
It was the Creator and the idea that He endowed the people and not the people or government itself that did it. In this recognition it says that the government or any other person has your rights in their hands.
The problem I think is that
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:07am.
The problem I think is that the phrase "Creator" in the DOI is simply a technical reference to Natural Law (meaning Man has this rights naturally embedded in its very existence and independently of other social constructs) and not necessarily a reference to a religious view... However, whenever this phrase is uttered nowadays, it almost always alludes to a (particular) religious interpretation, which is why I think many public figures avoid it when making references to the natural law motivation behind the DOI (which exists independently from any particular religious world view)... I think this is specially true in the case of Obama (which is OBVIOUSLY not a Christian ... probably an atheist or at least an agnostic) Not to say the Founding Fathers were not Christian or devout, but I think it is clear they meant religion to be a personal affair and built the founding documents to separate governance from metaphysics... This meaning has become a bit fuzzy as of lately, with Creator = YahwehConcerning "Creator"
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 12/01/2010 - 8:39pm.
The phrase "natural law" was well known to the Founders. It is not a modern day construct. If the Founders meant "Natural Law" they would have used it.
"Creator" is specific and not an allegory for "Natural Law having nothing to do with God". Creator is God. It is doubtful that anyone capable of understanding religion during this era would mistake "Creator" for anything other than "God".
The words have meaning, and this meaning was specific for the times. Problems arise when people treat these words/documents as "living/breathing" such that the original intent/meaning may be distorted by modern caprice.
The ball is in your court to provide proof supporting your opinion.
What i meant is that the
Submitted by Francisco on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:42am.
What i meant is that the phrase in question is a rough paraphrase of John Locke, that argued that a "Law of Nature" (used here in the abstract sense, not as a counterpoint to God) ensures all men to be "equal and independent" and to possess a right to "life, health, liberty, or possessions". Given the explicit influence of Locke and subsequent thinkers among the FFs (specially Jefferson), I think, though it may be debatable, that the phrase in question (and much of the DOI) are affirmations of those principles.
While it is true that a common sense interpretation of this text at the time would most surely hold "Creator" and "Yahweh" as equivalent, I would argue (controversially) that such an interpretation among the FFs themselves is far from clear; Many of them had Deist inclinations (in the tradition of Enlightenment philosophy which was one of the intellectual driving forces for America, the concept). The term "Creator" itself is a common Deist term for the Supreme Being...
In my eyes, this point is further enforced by a curiosity: While most national iconographies in Europe at the time were steeped in Christian imagery (and,for the most part,remain so to this day, like flags, anthems, seals, etc.), early American iconography was somewhat based on the aesthetics of Roman republicanism and the Enlightenment, like the "Eye of Providence", "Annuit Coeptis", "Novus Ordo Seclorum", etc. Some of this imagery was also occasionally used in Christian motifs through the ages, but the avoidance of explicitly canonical christian symbols might convey some meaning, in my opinion.. It is also interestening that some of the initial proposals for these symbols which had a much more explicitly religious conotation (as was standard at the time) were discarded in favor of the these more abstract ones...
I also subscribe to intentionalism in exegesis, which is exactly why i commented on this issue: In my opinion, this phrase as originally meant does not have the same common sense meaning today.
Of course, I am no expert in the subject, and my opinion is merely based on curiosity mixed with some sparse research, so I freely admit much of this is speculation on my part..
A Rose By Any Other Name
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 3:48pm.
Do you think that "Creator" would have been acceptable to all the non-Deists if "Creator" was primarily a Deist descriptor?
Religions share the premise of creation by a/the "Creator", of which various names are used. Selecting "Yalweh" in the DOI would confer specificity and potentially the appearance of state-sponsored religion, something the founding fathers were keenly aware of. Using "Lord" also may have created some unintended issues as well, including a harkening to the monarchy in England. "Creator" is universal, and, also adds grammatical emphasis to the sentence as well. "Creator", then, serves multiple purposes simultaneously. Clever Founding Fathers!
The one undeniable fact is that DOI term "Creator" is God, and religion was purposefully included and agreed upon in the DOI.