White House


donald_trump_108984675_1_610x458

Re-posted from National Review Oct. 18, 2016

As a long-time loyal Republican, my chronic fear is that George W. Bush will be the last Republican president. (A fear expressed earlier this year by Bush himself.)

This fear predates Donald J. Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination. It is a concern that I’ve expressed more than once over the last four years. But Trump’s inevitable Election Day loss coupled with a raging Republican civil war has strengthened the odds of a White House under permanent Democratic control.

At this writing, no one knows if Trump will disengage from active Republican politics after November. But it doesn’t really matter because his short-term legacy will be what we’ll call the “Trump Test”:

Did you support Donald Trump?

Did you campaign with or for Trump?

Did you denounce any of Trump’s statements or policy stances? Which ones? How and when?

Did you vote for Trump?

If you’re a candidate for the 2020 GOP nomination, you’re going to have to address these toxic questions. And your answers will inevitably enrage at least one sizable group of voters. Some of the 2020 contenders will have better answers than others. But all will be tainted by their responses to Trump, because of the passion he stirs in both his supporters and his detractors.

On one side are Trump loyalists infuriated that party leaders (see: Paul Ryan) are not fully funding, campaigning with, or standing by their man. After Trump’s inevitable loss in November, these loyalists, many of them grassroots activists who helped Trump win the nomination, are poised to blame the GOP high command, accusing Republican leaders of disloyalty and threatening to leave the party.

On the other side are the Never Trumpers, who will join with the squishy middle to shout, “I told you so” when Trump loses. Expect these folks to be armed with plans to reform the primary system that allowed Trump to “hijack” the party. (“Super delegates” anyone?)

All indications are that the war between these two factions for control of the GOP will only get bloodier between now and 2020. It almost makes you pine for those polite pre-Trump days when the “only” intra-party conflict was between the “conservative” and “establishment” wings of the GOP. But then you remember it was that conflict that spawned this one, by giving rise to a fractured primary field. Competing against 17 other candidates, Trump seized the party by the throat through a combination of bombastic showmanship and voter frustration, gaining momentum after attracting relatively small percentages of fed-up primary voters desperate to try something radically outside the box.

History will note that Trump’s movement eventually demolished all the conservative and establishment candidates and blurred the lines between the party’s two traditional factions. But not forever! When Trump finishes with the party, the traditional factions will reemerge even more divided by the fallout from his loss, the ensuing arguments over his legacy, and fights arising from the 2020 presidential candidates’ answers to the Trump Test.

Democrats, on the other hand, won’t be divided in their opinion of Trump’s historical meaning. They’re already licking their lips in anticipation of the opportunity to replace Bush with Trump as the Republican bogeyman of choice in voters’ minds. Instead of the tired mantra about how Bush wrecked the economy, they’ll be able to hang Trump around the necks of GOP candidates nationwide.

So yes, there is reason to fear that we’ve seen the last Republican president. But going forward, we should keep the faith that a leader will eventually emerge to follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps. After all, we know “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

— Myra Adams is a media producer and political writer. She was on creative team of the 2004 Bush campaign and on the ad council of the 2008 McCain campaign. E-mail her at MyraAdams01@gmail.com.

Advertisements

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton's new web site.

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton’s new web site.

There were two great national social movements of the 20th century, Civil Rights and the Women’s Movement. (Also known as the Feminist Movement, Women’s Liberation and Women’s Lib.) As these movements gained momentum they contributed to the social upheaval that helped define the decade of the 1960s.

Now, in the 21st century both movements are still evolving and their cultural and societal effects are part of our daily life, but the success of the Civil Rights movement shines slightly brighter, as witnessed by the second inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States

Through Barack Obama, one of these two great social movements has reached the pinnacle of power twice. But in next few years, will the Women’s Movement, led by its representative-in-chief Hillary Clinton, make an all out attempt to achieve that same goal?  And will the “dominant media” be 1000% behind Clinton as the leader of the movement to help elect the first female President of the United States?

The answer to both questions is “yes” and “yes, definitely.”

For the record I am not, nor have I never been, a Hillary supporter, but as a baby-boomer Republican woman having come of age during the peak of “woman’s liberation,” I can not ignore what I foresee as an extremely ripe political movement on the horizon, even though its leader will not receive my vote.

All my political sensibilities point to a majority of American women of all ages, races, education levels and from all parts of this nation banding together to fuel a “Hillary in 2016” super-sized rocket on a trajectory straight to the White House.

However, the rocket ship stays on the launch pad if Hillary decides not to run in 2016 due to declining health or other unknown factors. But if launch is a go, than woe to any Republican male whether he is white, Hispanic, plus-sized or lean, who dares to be her opponent in 2016.

Having this opinion puts me in direct disagreement with writer Matt Lewis, who concludes in a piece which appeared in The Week  entitled, In Four Years We’ll Be Inaugurating Marco Rubio; “Watch out, Hillary. Come January 2017, America won’t be inaugurating its first female president. We’ll be inaugurating our first Latino commander-in-chief. “

But my contrary belief is that the movement to elect the first female president of the United States already has tons of industrial strength momentum and its own sense of historic urgency now seen almost daily on display throughout the mainstream media. Whereas, the movement to elect a Latino commander-in-chief will not be nearly as strong in 2016 as it will be say a decade or two from now.

For the remainder of 2013 and probably well into 2014, the major theme of all the Hillary coverage will be focused on the question, “Will she run?” But once that is answered in the affirmative, and deals are made to eliminate any Democratic primary opposition, you can expect blatant mainstream media bias on par with what occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign fueling the historic movement that elected the first African-American president.

Let us not forget how much the dominant media loves the triumph of a social movement whose members were formerly discriminated against. Certainly electing the first woman president in 2016 totally fits that bill. (And now, unlike in 2008, they really like her Bill again too!)

Another advantage Hillary will have in 2016, that first played out in the 2008 presidential election (and only to a slightly lesser extent in 2012), was the notion that if you dared not to support Obama, first as a candidate and then as an incumbent, you risked being labeled a “racist.”

This means heading towards 2016, do not be surprised when an eerily familiar mantra starts to unfold, labeling anyone not supporting Hillary for President a chauvinist, sexist or “anti-woman.”

Just watch how Hillary’s candidacy will ignite a whole new “War on Women”… but with a unique twist. For once the movement is totally underway a battle of name calling will be waged against any man (especially) or woman (most likely) who is not a foot soldier in Hillary’s army, marching in lock step towards conquering the Oval Office in the name of “Girl Power.”

As one prominent Republican campaign strategist told me during the 2008 McCain campaign, it is nearly impossible for any presidential candidate to be victorious if he or she is running against a social movement and Hillary in 2016 will most definitely be a social movement.

Ironically in 2008, Hillary was burned when she ran up against an even stronger social movement (at the time) with its goal to nominate the first African-American Democrat candidate.

But in 2016 all the stars will be aligned in her favor. This is because for great movements to be successful they must be perfectly timed and fueled by a desire to achieve something once almost unachievable or to compensate for past treatment now considered to be unjust. And the movement of Hillary in 2016 has all of the above.

Additionally, successful movements like Obama’s quest for the presidency in 2008 must first have the full faith and backing of the dominant media and once that is achieved, all the “plain folks” usually just fall in line.

(See gay marriage and gay rights as the most recent example of such a movement).

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in 2016 will have even more of an advantage than did Senator Obama at the beginning of his movement.

Her favorability is already extremely high at 67% and she does not have to be introduced to the American people, as was the case in 2008 with a little known newly minted Senator from Illinois.

Even if Hillary’s popularity somewhat diminishes (which it will), Republicans with an eye for 2016 must not be in denial that they will be up against a historic movement with the largest, most powerful voting block that abandoned them by a margin of more than 10% in 2012.  (Exit polls indicate 55% of women voted for Obama and 44% for Romney, with women comprising 53% of the entire electorate.)

However, the dominant media, in concert with the growing power of American women will form a tour de force that, in my opinion, no male Republican presidential candidates currently on the 2016 horizon can expect to overcome.

It is my sincere hope that the 2016 GOP candidate will find a way to win the White House anyway. But if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will be more than a presidential candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton will represent a “triumph” of the women’s movement similar to the “triumph” of the Civil Rights movement which twice helped elect Barack Obama.

And, as we have just seen in 2008 and 2012, running against a social movement is made even more difficult when the dominant media is totally supportive of the movement and will do everything in its power to forge a “happy ending.”

Re-posted from RedState.com

 

 

 

 


Obviously since my last post in November much has changed!                                              (Yes, I know I need to re-post my pieces here more often.)                                             Governor Bob McDonnell ran into some problems with “women issues” legislation and his VP star has dramatically faded as a result. So now in late May here we are….

Breaking News May 30, 2012:                                                                                                  Senator Portman in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Is this a strong signal that Portman has been tapped to be Romney’s VP?

Re-posted from PJ Media

These days one of the favorite games among political junkies is prognosticating about who will be Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate. An important criterion for selection, the “incredibly boring white guy”  factor previously has been examined by this writer and others.

Now, there seems to be a consensus among inside GOP political operatives as to who will share the bumper sticker with Romney within that group of potential VP nominees who exemplify that distinguishing “boring” characteristic.

That person is Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

Sensing an opinion wave for Portman within the last month, I asked a prominent GOP Super Pac insider (name withheld by request) why Portman is the “chosen one” and this was the email response I received:

He could bring Ohio!!! And he is very experienced and he won’t spend $100,000 on clothes in two months!  The goal this cycle is “safe, not sorry. But win Ohio!”

Packed within that email are several discussion points alluding to the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, (which are sure to be elaborated upon in the comment section of this post).

Notwithstanding a negative or positive opinion of the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, Sarah Palin has significantly impacted the decision-making selection process of the GOP’s 2012 VP candidate and it now looks like Senator Rob Portman will be the ultimate beneficiary.

Another veteran insider of past GOP presidential campaigns responded to my email which posed the question “Why Portman?” with this list of reasons:

He’s fabulous.

Would actually be a great VP.  

Not an ideologue.

Ohio.

Understands jobs and global economy as U.S. Trade Representative not OMB.

“Not OMB” is worth discussing for this is a touchy Portman resume item that Team Obama is sure to exploit as a negative talking point after Portman is officially nominated.

From May, 2006 until June, 2007 Rob Portman served as President George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (OMB)

When asked about the potential for President Obama and the Democrats to “denigrate” his OMB service, Portman was ready with an answer, as recently reported in a comprehensive piece in Real Clear Politics (RCP) entitled, “Does Portman Have the Edge in VP Sweepstakes?

He told the Cincinnati Enquirer last month: “I was there for just over a year and I put out one budget … [which] was actually a balanced budget. And not even over 10 years but over five years and I’m proud of that.” He conceded, “Frankly it was a battle within the White House to get the White House and everybody on board with that . . . but imagine that, a balanced budget.”

So Rob Portman’s defense of his one year as OMB Director includes a small salvo aimed at the Bush White House for rejecting his “pathway to balancing the budget in five years”. Now, by comparison, President Obama’s budget deficits are projected to be $977 billion in 2013 making President Bush’s $161 billion deficit in 2007 look like chump change.

This means Portman has plenty of cover when the Obama campaign unleashes their wild attack dogs in the last two months of the general election and there is no doubt that Portman will successfully defend himself and his record at OMB.

Portman’s first post in President Bush’s second term was as the United States Trade Representative. He worked in that position for one year before President Bush promoted him to OMB Director in mid- 2006.

To further understand the depth of experience that Senator Portman brings to the Romney ticket, it is important to note that before serving two years in the Bush Administration, Portman had a distinguished congressional career which spanned 12 years from May, 1993 until May, 2005.

Representing Ohio’s 2nd congressional district, Portman built a reputation for bi-partisanship, writing numerous pieces of legislation that were signed into law by President Clinton; but you can count on this part of his career to be completely ignored by Team Obama.

Instead, get ready to read how Portman was “Bush’s guy” who helped drive the economy into a ditch and you can almost hear Obama asking voters the question, “and this is the guy you want to let back into the White House?”

Well, the voters of Ohio had no problem sending Portman back to Washington after serving in Bush’s White House. In fact, when Portman ran for his current senate seat in 2010 he defeated his Democrat opponent, garnering 57% of the vote to Lee Fisher’s 39%.

Now in the midst of the 2012 election cycle when Romney is in search of a “boring white guy” how could any guy who won an important state’s senate race by 18% points possibly be that boring?

In response to the boring accusation which supposedly helps Portman’s chances, here is an entertaining piece to the contrary which appeared recently on Buzz Feed entitled  “15 Genuinely Interesting Things About Rob Portman.”

He’s hunts! He canoes! He bikes! He fishes! He speaks Spanish!  (The latter could be a big benefit to Romney with a voting block that he needs to attract.)

So, maybe he’s not that boring after all.

Consider Portman’s resume of 12 years as a Congressman with stints as International Trade Representative, OMB Director, a US Senator since January 2011 an Ohio political power player who is credited with helping Romney win the Ohio primary over Rick Santorum — and you have someone who is extremely well qualified to be the GOP vice-presidential candidate.

Now many signs are pointing in Portman’s direction except this one.

Currently Intrade has Senator Portman’s chances of being selected as Romney’s VP rated at only 22%. (But Portman’s chances are increasing by the minute.)

Portman’s closest Intrade competitor is Florida Senator Marco Rubio. At the moment Rubio’s chances that he will be Romney’s VP are rated at 24%.

This tight VP race raging at Intrade suggests that the general betting public is not yet up to speed on what many Washington GOP insiders and members of the media are saying about Portman’s real chances.

All politics aside, the primary job of the Vice-President is to step in and take over as President of the United States if called upon — and for that role Senator Portman is well suited.

In fact, Mark McKinnon, now a political media personality, who served as media strategist for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, wrote in an email responding to my question “Why Portman”, “The guy was truly made for the job.”

Compare that description to the now deceased Osama bin Laden’s stinging critique of Vice-President Joe Biden, calling him “utterly unprepared” to be President of the United States.

This description came to light on captured documents while bin Laden planned/dreamed of targeting planes carrying President Obama and General Petraeus so our nation would be plunged into crisis under Biden’s leadership.

In the end the contest between “the guy truly made for the job” vs. the one called “utterly unprepared” will not be the determining factor in whether Obama or Romney is victorious in November.

However, according to my sources Senator Rob Portman is the one most likely to be standing on stage at the Vice-Presidential debate this fall.

So reserve your seat now because a Biden vs. Portman match-up will be anything but boring.


Karl Rove recently wrote a widely circulated op-ed titled
                      “Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012.”  Here is the opening paragraph:

President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.

Yes, it’s all true, and Rove backs up each reason with relevant data. However, he fails to emphasize the one overwhelming advantage President Obama has against his 2012 opponent: the power, glory, and respect that is accorded the person who holds the title “president of the United States.”

Historically, holders of this esteemed title have a 67.7% chance of re-election. As a co-writer and I noted earlier this year, and as was mentioned later by CBS News, “in the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term.”

Since Karl Rove knows well the reverence accorded the president, he does mention incumbency once in this context:

While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency’s great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring.

It is Rove’s belief that President Obama’s decision to act less presidential and more like a candidate, while governing as a partisan in 2011, will help thwart his re-election chances.

This is where I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rove.

In fact, I believe Obama’s carefully calculated partisan behavior will actually increase his chances of winning a second term.

Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has never stopped campaigning. He derives his energy, his very life blood, from being out on the trail, speaking to crowds large or small, and “pressing the flesh.”

During his entire presidency thus far, Obama has wanted us to think all those visits to factories, schools, campuses, town halls, and military bases were 100% official. The truth is the backdrop and especially the choice of state were always political. This was Obama’s way of keeping the campaign going.

Having been a “spy” since 2008 on Obama’s infamous campaign e-mail list “Organizing for America,” I have seen firsthand, sometimes on a daily basis during key moments of his presidency, how the campaign truly never ended.

“Organizing for America,” supposedly 13 million strong, has officially re-tooled for the 2012 campaign and is now called Obama for America.

Like a good salesman, Obama can not stop selling his product — himself — long after the sale is finalized. It’s as if he knows his God-given talents are more suited to “campaigner in chief” than the expected chief executive/commander in chief.

As Rove suggests, Obama should, as an incumbent, distance himself from partisan politics.” But President Obama has never distanced himself from partisan politics. Obama has always been and continues to be a bitter partisan Democrat.

So why should he stop now with 2012 around the corner?

All Obama will continue to do up until November 6, 2012, is recite the same old red-meat rhetoric about how those scary Republicans messed things up so bad; thus, why on earth would you let them back into the White House?

Besides, if Republicans do manage to win, all they will do is cut your government benefits and throw granny off the cliff.

With Obama, it is always us vs. them.

Look for our non-stop campaigning president to repeat this mantra daily to his loyal base of African-Americans, Hispanics, under 30 voters, die-hard liberals, college educated women, public/ private sector union members, Hollywood, the LGBT community, teachers, and titans who run influential new media companies extremely important to his campaign like Google and Facebook.

(Remember how Mark Zuckerberg famously donned a tie to meet Obama?)

These century-old Democratic talking points, delivered with Obama’s charm, humor, and updated spin, are what his base wants and expects to hear.

So Obama, ever the crowd pleaser, will give them what they want, regardless of the fact that he was elected president of all the people in these United States.

After the aforementioned groups in key states, Obama will set his sights on his weakest link: independent voters. He desperately needs to make up for the possible drop-off in base voters, for all the reasons cited by Rove.

Thus, President Obama will woo independents by exaggerating his record and planting false fears about Republicans in the minds of just enough wishy-washy independents to successfully knit together a winning map of 270 electoral votes.

He will ask in various ways: How can you trust those Republicans?

Get ready to hear that message almost 24/7 closer to 2012.

Now, couple all that partisan fear strategy with the office of the presidency.

Obama will have the trappings of power, the White House and Air Force One, all harnessed to raise more money than any political campaign in the history of the world, while on “official business” by day and as “fundraiser in chief” at night — usually in the same town, of course.

Already eyebrows have been raised about how Obama has used the White House to court well-heeled 2008 donors. Remember, it is only mid- 2011 and he is in full campaign fundraising mode on the way to his realistic goal of $1 billion — beating his own record of $750 million in 2008.

It has been estimated that he is on track to raise $60 million this quarter ending June 30. So with fundraising in mind, here is a recent video I received from Obama for America about entering a raffle with the winning prize a dinner with the president at the White House. Does anyone else think this is disgraceful?

Money can’t buy elections per se, but it can buy months of television time; radio, print, and internet ads; “volunteers”; campaign offices; legions of bloggers; and truckloads of campaign paraphernalia. Money can also buy slick messages that will counter the newly formulated 2012 Republican message that Obama’s policies have made the economic downturn longer, deeper, and generally worse.

But Obama will have so much money that he and his message will continuously be in our faces, surrounding us in every medium. We will have no choice but to listen as he spins his tale about what he inherited, how much progress he has made, and how he just needs more time to make it all better.

Remember we are a partisan nation and we have a partisan president who has and will continue to use that partisanship to his full advantage.

Unfortunately for our nation’s future, this is Obama’s winning strategy and not a “strategic blunder” as Rove suggests.

Americans must recognize by the fall of 2012 that Obama is a partisan showman and then elect a leader who does not confuse campaigning with governing.

Currently Intrade, the respected online prediction market, gives Obama a 57% chance of re-election. That, coupled with the fact that 67.7% of incumbents wins re-election as mentioned earlier, means that President Obama will likely win a second term.

I pray Karl Rove is right and I am wrong.


Through the Teleprompter Glass

Posted By Myra Adams On November 1, 2010 @ 9:20 am In Elections 2010, Humor & Fun | 30 Comments

Dateline: The White House, Washington, D.C., Wednesday, November 3, 2010.

Today is the day after the day that I have to admit was not one of my best days.

Dead people … you let me down! Especially in Illinois! I counted on your votes to carry our Democratic candidates to victory, but instead you stayed dead. This is why Chicago needs Rahm as mayor; he knows how to get dead people to the polls.

And you ACORNS? So helpful in 2008 … what happened? Did you all grow into big trees, anchored to the ground and unable to get to the polls?

I am especially disappointed with all of you in the New Black Panther Party [1].

You so effectively intimidated voters in Philly for me during the last election with your billy clubs and paramilitary uniforms. What the heck happened yesterday? Were you hiding from Fox News?

But today is not for finger pointing.

My daughter Sasha said to me this morning at breakfast, “Dad, you really took a whuppin’ last night.” And I said, “No, not a whuppin’; I was just having a teachable moment.”

She asked me what I learned and I told her I learned I can no longer blame President George W. Bush for all our nation’s problems. So from this day on I will delete the words “I inherited” from my teleprompter. I know you are all sick of hearing “I inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression,” “I inherited two wars,” and “I inherited a financial crisis” — and frankly I am as well.

Now, instead of “I inherited” I will say, “It’s not my fault.” As in, it’s not my fault the Republicans now control Congress.

It’s not my fault Americans don’t understand what I have done for them.

It’s not my fault unemployment rates have remained high [2].

It’s not my fault there are no such things as shovel-ready projects [3].

It’s not my fault that billions of stimulus dollars were wasted [4].

It’s not my fault your health insurance premiums are dramatically increasing [5].

It not my fault White House staffers are fleeing [6].

It’s not my fault the rise of the oceans never slowed and our planet never healed [7].

Now that the midterm elections are finally over, I will be busy working on two great initiatives for the benefit of the American people.

The first initiative calls for stimulating the economy with the increased production of Krazy Glue. This stems from our need to ensure that whenever I travel across our nation there will always be an ample supply so never again will my presidential seal fall off my podium [8].

The second great initiative is my 2012 re-election. Yesterday’s teachable moment taught me that I am through with teachable moments. So starting today I have issued an executive order for a full-scale mobilization of every dead person who did not vote yesterday. I will be appointing a resurrection czar to ensure that every Democrat family will be reunited with their loved ones just in time to get them to the polls on November 6, 2012.

Finally, as president I am often asked, “What keeps you up at night?” Well, let me tell you what kept me up last night.

Remember back in November 2004 when I was first elected senator from Illinois? That means yesterday if I were still a senator, I would have been up for re-election. So last night I wondered: would I have lost my seat? Unfortunately my former Senate seat was lost yesterday to a Republican, but thankfully it wasn’t me on the ballot.

Then I fell into a deep sleep knowing the loss of my old Senate seat wasn’t my fault.


 


 

REVOLUTIONARY NEWSFLASH!

Dateline: Monticello, Virginia, October 22, 2010: Thomas Jefferson has stopped rolling in his grave because President Barack Obama has finally restored the word “Creator” into the Declaration of Independence.

Yes it’s really true!

Our self-proclaimed “Christian” president, when quoting the Declaration of Independence at a campaign rally on Friday, October 22, in Los Angeles, finally (after three unsuccessful attempts)  got up the courage to insert the word “Creator” — as in “…endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is what the Founding Fathers would have called “manning up,” which now prompts three 21st century revolutionary questions:

  1. Why did President Obama finally program the word “Creator” into this teleprompter the fourth time around?
  2. Why did he omit the word “Creator” in the first place?
  3. Does any of this matter?

Before these questions can be answered we need to establish the factual record.

Wednesday, September 15: Congressional Hispanic Caucus Gala, Washington, D.C.

President Obama, when quoting the Declaration, omits “Creatorfor the first time:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Here’s the White House video and transcript.

After the September 15 speech, Fox News reported the White House said that “President Obama went off script and ad libbed when he made that mistake.”

Wednesday, September 22: Democratic Congressional Committee Speech in New York

President Obama omitted the word “Creator” when loosely quoting the Declaration:

…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 … .

Here’s the White House transcript of the speech.

Monday, October 18: Democratic Congressional Committee Speech in Maryland

Once again President Obama omits the word “Creator” when quoting:

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.

Here is the official White House speech with the glaring omission.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked why the president did not use the words “endowed by their Creator” in his Monday speech, told reporters: “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”

Obviously what was first reported as “a mistake” on September 20 was deliberate after the third omission of the word “Creator” on October 18. Surely President Obama, who taught constitutional law, understands that “inalienable rights endowed from their Creator” as stated in the Declaration of Independence was so revolutionary a concept that the history of mankind remains forever changed, and he knows the word “Creator” is the key component of that concept.

So now that you are up to speed on the historic showdown of Obama vs. The Creator let’s try to answer the questions posed at the beginning:

Why did President Obama finally program the word “Creator” into his teleprompter?

Since there has been no official explanation from the White House, I would like to speculate.

  • When it was brought to the president’s attention that the White House switchboards were jammed with thousands of complaints about the omission, Obama was strongly advised that dissing the Creator, the Founding Fathers, and Glenn Beck listeners, all at the same time, was the triple threat of doom to his presidency.
  • Obama decided that since he is a Christian he had better acknowledge the Creator since he plans on asking for some help from the Creator on November 2.
  • Obama “went off script and ad libbed” when he restored the word “Creator” on October 22,  thus making  another mistake. So watch for the “Creator” word game to start up again when Obama quotes the Declaration non-stop during the 2012 campaign season.

Why did he omit the word “Creator” in the first place?

Again no official explanation other than Robert Gibbs saying on October 19: “The president believes in the Declaration of Independence.” (Which we all find comforting.)

So I would like to offer some plausible explanations:

  • Obama knew the Creator was busy blow-torching the glaciers and would not notice.
  • For Obama to say the word “Creator” means acknowledging there is a Being greater than he. Some of his critics think this is the root cause of the omissions. After all, this is the man who said upon his nomination in June 2008 that he was certain this was the moment the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. Obviously there is an intense rivalry going on here.
  • Political correctness: for if Obama states that our rights are “endowed by the Creator” he offends those who believe our rights are only endowed by the government.
  • Obama was concerned the ACLU would file a lawsuit if he uttered the word “Creator.” After all, there was that pesky issue of church and state.  On Monday, October 18, after Obama omitted “Creator” from his speech for the third time, and the White House reporters were asking about the omission, Obama was concerned the wing nuts might cause a ruckus.  So he asked his attorney general to check on this “Creator” business with the ACLU.  Sure enough, the ACLU told Eric Holder that it was illegal, or at least in bad taste, for Obama to read the Declaration with that offensive “Creator” word. However, since Jefferson wrote it before the ACLU was established, and because there were way too many copies floating around, they would give Obama a pass in exchange for an ultra liberal Supreme Court justice pick next time around.

Which explains why three days later, on Friday, October 22, Obama restored that problematic “Creator” word to the Declaration.

Why does any of this matter?

My 5th grade history teacher taught us that up until the writing of the Declaration of Independence the rights of citizens were granted by the king. But our Founding Fathers declared that our rights as citizens of this new nation were granted to us from our Creator and that was a totally revolutionary concept. After recalling my 5th grade history, I find it truly astonishing that our president can omit that revolutionary Creator concept three times and then restore it without any official explanation. Where are the Congressional hearings?

For without the word “Creator,” one has to ask Obama: From whom are these certain inalienable rights endowed? The government? A king? An emperor? Allah? Buddha?  Aqua-Buddha? Congress? Democrats?

You can not have a receiver without a giver.

So according to our president our rights were endowed by a mystery benefactor on September 15, September 22, and October 18.

Then miraculously on October 22, the mystery was resolved when Obama restored that controversial “Creator” word to our founding document.

We can all rest easier knowing President Obama now acknowledges where our rights as citizens come from, so neither he nor the government he leads can ever take those rights away.

Update: As this article was going to print, it was reported that since Friday, October 22, Obama has quoted the Creator in the Declaration of Independence four times in four speeches.

Obviously our president thinks he needs a major intervention on November 2.

Share |  Reprinted from Pajamas Media

October 26, 2010 – by Myra Adams