Why Creator and Unalienable Rights Matter

(Image: Wikimedia Commons)

Just the other day, Obama again omitted the words “by their Creator” while quoting the Declaration of Independence.  The latest incident occurred on October 18^th as he addressed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  This is the third time he’s done this over the course of the last few weeks.  First, he omitted the words while reciting the line from the Declaration of Independence during a speech in front of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on September 15^th.  A few days later, on September 22^nd, he again omitted the words while speaking at a Democratic Party fundraiser in New York City.  Some claim the omission was accidental.  Yet others say it’s no big deal.  I maintain it is no accident and it is a big deal.  Yet this is not the most troubling “rewrite” of the Declaration by Obama and his team.  Read on…

The first time Obama skipped “by their Creator,” he might have escaped with the “it was an accident” excuse.  When he makes the same “mistake” two more times over the course of a few weeks, when do we finally stop calling it an “accident?”  Once a Presidential speech writer completes a speech, the President and his team review every word with a fine tooth comb – nothing “accidently” slips into a Presidential speech – or in this case, is “accidently” left out.  To claim all three incidents were simple oversights is to claim the American people are brainless, gullible idiots.

Here’s the text of Obama’s October 18^th speech from the White House website:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical.  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.”

Given the official text, it seems very clear to me that the words “by their Creator” were purposely omitted from the Declaration of Independence quote.  How much more proof, particularly considering the outrage over the first incident, do we need before we must conclude this is not merely an “accident” or “oversight?”

The actual line from the Declaration of Independence reads:

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…

Note as well the Obama administration substitution of “inalienable” for “unalienable.”  This is a critical, though subtle distinction that no one else, to my knowledge, has noted.  Though similar, the words “inalienable” and “unalienable” have significant legal difference.  An “inalienable” right is a right which is not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.  An “unalienable” right is a right that is “incapable of being alienated, that is sold and transferred.”  Do you see the very critical difference?  If you consent, your inalienable right can be given up – in extreme cases, the courts can even strip you of inalienable rights.  However, not even you have the ability to forfeit an unalienable right.  Again, given the vetting Presidential speeches undergo, it is no accident “inalienable” has replaced “unalienable.”  This is the same subtle change of Obama speaking lately of “freedom to worship” instead of “freedom of religion.”  They sound the same, but in reality they are vastly different concepts.

Seeing clearly the omission of “by their Creator” and substitution of “inalienable” for “unalienable,” what conclusions might we draw?  If there is no Creator and our rights are “inalienable” instead of “unalienable,” this means they derive from the state – and are open to change or modification as the state sees fit.  The state isn’t at our mercy; we are at its mercy.

In order for the entire socialist structure to work, God must die.  Why?  Because if God exists and our unalienable derive from Him, they cannot be taken away or modified by anyone except God.  Again, we do not even have the ability to give up an unalienable right.  This creates all sorts of messy problems for the socialist.  Under a theist view, for example, if you take money from one person in order to give it to another, it’s not “wealth redistribution,” it’s stealing.  If you take the life of an unborn child (or leave the child to die after a botched abortion), it’s not “reproductive rights,” it’s murder.  These are but two examples of the “problems” God creates for a socialist system.

Particular words have particular meanings.  Understanding precise meanings is very important.  Don’t be tricked by similar sounding words which actually represent vastly different concepts.  We must pay attention to what’s going on around us.  Our Declaration of Independence is quite clear: we are all created equal in the image of our Creator and He endows us with certain unalienable rights.  Government exists as our servant to safeguard our unalienable rights.  We are its master, not the other way around – our only master is God.