Gasp! Shriek! Faint! Obama [spittle flies forth] has taken any mention of God out of the Gettysburg Address! That proves it! Obama is a Muslim socialist. Calm down., Calm down! The right wing media, (wing ding media) is all a buzz over the dissing of God by the Socialist in Chief.
Here is one of the gentler gasp and shouts from nationalreview.com:
President Obama cut God out of his recitation of the Gettysburg Address.
In a recorded recitation uploaded to YouTube on November 9, President Obama read the address in its entirety. However, when it came to the line “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” the President left out the words “under God.”
Obama’s omission occurs at the 1:35 mark.
The video was used by PBS to create a montage of celebrities and all living presidents reciting the address. Obama’s omission is not included in that video.
And National Review’s update:
UPDATE: During today’s White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney claimed that President Obama had read from the version of the Gettysburg Address given to him by documentarian Ken Burns. This appears to be the case.
Then, according to newsbusters.org:
Chris Plante at WMAL Radio in Washington reported on his show Tuesday that President Obama joined a cast of 61 “noted lawmakers, politicians, news anchors and celebrities, including every living President, in reciting the Gettysburg Address” for PBS star Ken Burns, who made “The Civil War” documentary series.
Everyone else delivered the address as Lincoln had written it, including the phrase, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” But in his version of the address, President Obama omitted the words “under God.” (Video below, at about 1:35.) Will the networks notice this gaffe?
There was simply a lot of hysteria over nothing. President Obama read the part that Ken Burns asked him to, named the Nicolay version of the Gettysburg Address. There are 5 different versions. To learn more, see the Ken Burns website http://www.learntheaddress.org/.
It’s really a shame that so many different right wing-ding sites sit poised and perched, ready to attack the President. It is so much easier to think less and assume the worst. Do you ever participate on ODS? I know some of our readers do. Those same readers then adamantly deny they hate the president. Go figure.
Does anyone really care?
Plenty of wing-dings made a-holes of themselves. I don’t know…do they care? Does it bother them that they were wrong…again? I wouldn’t know.
Smart play on Obama’s part. Any mention of God in front of democrats will get one booed off the stage, and every good speaker should know his audience.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJE9YfsbNQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeUJE9YfsbNQ
That is such horse crap. The Democrats didn’t boo God. They booed the process and procedure.
Typical. Stirring something up that doesn’t exist.
It isn’t God who offends Democrats. They just don’t drag God out to prop up their policies.
This is all part of a sinister plan. Next, Christmas will be outlawed. Drones will be used to prevent the establishment of any religious-themed yard displays.
Eventually, all copies of the Bible will be burned as the final step in Obamacare. After which we will get our 666 tattoos. Hail Satan!
666 on our foreheads….speaking of display yards, its about time for the Leesburg Courthouse to crank up for another year of Christmas animosity. I wonder who will be the most outrageous this year.
Lions -1 Christians-0 again this year?
Re: The Democrats booing at the convention. It wasn’t the process or procedure or “Under God” It was the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.
With that said, I hardly see how this is “Obama Derangement Syndrome” It isn’t exactly common knowledge that there are 5 different versions of the Gettysburg address, some with Under God in them, some without. The most famous one is of course the one Lincoln actually read, which included Under God. That is the one that should be read at commemorations. But I don’t see any attempt to deliberately exclude the phrase “Under God”
If Rick Bentley were reading it on the other hand… (And that’s a joke, not an invitation to a flamewar.)
You might be right about the Jerusalem part. Too bad we didn’t see enough of the content to tell since the video was clearly to claim that Democrats didn’t want God mentioned ever. However, the audience was disgruntled over the process. The vote was take 3 times.
ODS about the Address? You obviously missed the pile on attempt by all the wing ding publications …screeching that Obama was dissing God.
I did know there was mor than one version of the GA but I didn’t know exactly how many. IK would have probably tried to find out why under God was left out rather than assuming it was some Muslim plot to infiltrate the WH.
I don’t see anybody freaking out about Muslim plots. The National Review quote seems pretty reasonable. They don’t talk about plots, Muslims, socialists or anything else other than what happened. They state what happened and then added an update with the White House explanation. About the only thing I can see might have an agenda was saying it was “omitted” which suggests a deliberate action. But that’s hardly ODS.
If you want to say people are overreacting to this, post a better example of a “wing ding publication” that overreacted. (freerepublic is probably a good place to look. They are usually pretty crazy on all things Obama.) Even Daily Caller isn’t very worked up over it: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/19/obama-delivers-gettysburg-address-on-youtube-leaves-out-under-god/
I’m not saying there aren’t people that are irrationally angry about Obama. There certainly are. Just like there were plenty of people that were irrationally angry about Bush. (more than with Obama in my opinion. The Iraq war really had people spun up.) I remember people claiming that Bush was going to invoke martial law and suspend elections to stay in power. Crazy isn’t a partisan issue. But you only seem to notice it when its on the right though.
As for the address, it sounds like the original drafts that Lincoln wrote didn’t include “Under God”, but he ad-libbed it in when he spoke so the versions written afterwards include it. I still say they should have included “Under God” since that’s what Lincoln actually said, but that’s because it’s more historically accurate and has nothing to do with socialists, Muslims or Obama. And I’m not very worked up over it. Just a nitpick like how Bush always referred to the “Democrat” party.
Furby, you are literal minded, eh? I was being sarcastic. I saw lots of comments all claiming some plot by Obama. It was pretty funny actually. I chose one or two of the milder comments.
But you are correct. Nawtional REview didn’t go overboard with communist plots. I did see a few out there though.
Furby, we haven’t had a REpublican president since Elena and I have had this blog so it would be hard for you to say what we have noticed and what e haven’t.
I don’t read left wing blogs as a rule. I try to stay mainstream.
Actually, I was bitching about how Chuck Todd was ridiculously obnoxious to Gov. McDonnell this morning. You must have missed it.
Since I am decidedly a left of center moderate, it stands to reason that I am going to get more torqued over absurdities from the right than from the left.
(I should mention that I can’t see what must be a video. So if the video has sometime more derranged than the pretty mild National Review stuff, disregard most of my previous post.)
I didn’t say you and Elena ignored BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) but you certainly do ignore most contemporary irrational attacks when it is against someone you see as a conservative. And you certainly act as though irrational hatred in politics is a brand new phenomenon that started the second Obama was elected. There is irrational hatred on both sides but you make cherry-pick examples to make it seem as though it’s a one sided coin. That’s intellectually dishonest.
Case in point, not a peep here about MSNBC’s Martin Bashir’s comments this week that somone should defecate in the mouth of Sarah Palin because she compared the debt to slavery. I’m not going to (ever) defend Sarah Palin, but you can criticize opinions her without disgusting personal attacks.
Can you claim with a straight face that if the positions had been reversed and Sarah Palin had made a vile comment about an MSNBC reporter that you wouldn’t have posted it faster than you can say “Rachel Maddow”
When you ignore a much bigger story (MSNBC reporter apologizing over Sarah Palin attack) in favor of one that didn’t actually happen (the right wing media being abuzz over the Gettysburg address.) I think that’s a step beyond biased.
Bashir was out of his mind; it’s disgraceful and he probably shouldn’t be on TV. Having said that, I don’t watch MSNBC and don’t know anybody who does; it’s hard to get worked up about what somebody says on a show that nobody watches. It’s the old if a tree falls in the forest question.
Plenty of people watch MSNBC. Most of my friends do and so do I. I am curious what Bashir has to do with Obama Derangement Syndrome. He just doesn’t seem to fit. I rarely watch him. I did watch the video. It was probably not the best taste. He apologized. End of statement. Palin never apologizes, regardless of how tasteless her remarks are. At least he apologized.
There is, generally, a lot of misogyny in some of the hateful things said about Sarah Palin.
As a female, I don’t feel most people attack her because she is female. I think most people attack her because she says stupid things. They would attack her if she was male also. Stupid is stupid regardless of gender.
So shouldn’t we be mad at ken burns?
Sarah Palin cancelled her appearance on NBC with Matt Lauer. We’ve been punished.
By the way there are 72 million democrats in the US. That’s a lot of people for one person to know what they all think.
@Furby McPhee
I have never claimed not to be biased. I have never said I was fair and balanced. I try to be truthful. That’s about as good as it gets.
I didn’t heard Bashir’s statement in the first place. It was sort of old news by the time I was even aware of it. It was just disgusting. That really isn’t the sort of thing I would post. Take ‘don’t do bathroom humor’ and apply it very generally. I agree with you. She can be criticized without making disgusting comments. Those were disgusting.
I am not prissy about language and I can use all sorts of profanity…but that was just disgusting.
As a matter of fact I have defended Sarah Palin on a couple of occasions. I defended her against Letterman and also against A-Rod. Both were sexist comments. Now, having said that…I think Palin is one of the nastiest human beings in politics. Her entire mind-set appears to be one liners, gouging someone. She also appears to be mindless.
I probably wouldn’t have commented if we reverse the situation. Gross is gross. I didn’t even comment on her remark about “the rack.” I thought it was tasteless.
Back to the Gettysburg Address. It most certainly did happen. Then there were all sorts of retractions. They might not be there now because I noticed criticism dropping off like flies. I found it amusing. But trust me, there was all sorts of Obama bashing over it.
I suppose they felt stupid. They should have.
I have been completely perplexed for five years at the animosity and hysteria that typify the reaction of many people toward Obama. He’s not particularly my cup of tea on foreign policy and some domestic issues, but he strikes me as an intellectually acute, honest person of good values who is intellectually and emotionally qualified to be president. I don’t have nearly the misgivings about his personal character that I had about Bill Clinton or the worries about his mental state that I ultimately had about Richard Nixon (misgivings completely validated by later release of White House tapes of that president). The closest president in my memory to Obama is Jimmy Carter, a good man who, despite his earnestness, simply could not seem to manage the external challenges that happened to occur when he was president. Obama still has time to pull things out. He was doing pretty well until just a few weeks ago when the health care roll-out problems blew up in his face. He’ll probably end up being judged by history as being somewhere in the middle of the pack. I do think there are serious foreign policy failures that have been endemic to this administration that are largely underestimated because of all the phony noise created by the Republican opposition on things that seem like great marketing ploys, but which are not, in fact, as critical to the welfare of the nation as are international security, trade, and diplomacy issues that are, through neglect, distraction or incompetence spiralling away from any meaningful America influence these days.
In any event, the crazies who paint Obama as a socialist, Muslim, godless, lying, Kenyan (take your pick in any combination) were placed on earth for purposes that probably have more to do with entertainment than policy. What is troubling, however, is that there are so many of them and some of them sit in Congress. One has to question Darwin when one contemplates the numbers and the fact that many have lived well into adulthood.
Good analysis. I was one of those fairly luke warm people about Obama. However, when Sarah Palin was added to the ticket, that was the deal breaker for me.
The more crazies who jumped on the band-wagon, the more I found likeable about the man. My luke warmness turned to at least comfortable warm. Too many people I had total disdain for trashed him.
Honest person? Really? Let me repeat that 36 times so that I have the option of changing its meaning when challenged!
The term “to lie” has been so debased in political parlance to be meaningless, SA. Everyone says it about everyone else and it can mean as little as someone having said something that someone else disagrees with.
I think it has only one meaning, and that meaning doesn’t include someone saying something that later turns out to have been incorrect, or something with which I disagree. It means an intentional false statement uttered for the purpose of deception.
Obama doesn’t strike me as a particularly devious person.
I suppose that week-long story about the video and Benghazi was just one of those White House utterances which turned out to be simply “incorrect” or something with which we disagreed. And, of course, absolutely no one in authority knew about the excellent chances of people losing their health care policies or their doctors — not the White House, not the drafters of ACA, not the Dem Congressional leadership, nobody. Oh, my goodness!! A big surprise all around. I needed a good laugh today. Scout always comes through.
So you really think all of those things were deliberate intentions to deceive, Wolverine?
Seriously…why?
You must be a politically unhappy person.
If I can bring a ray of light into your dreary life, Wolve, I feel I have, in my small way, improved a tiny portion of my environment. But, to return to the point, I continue to be puzzled by the personal animosity that seems to extend from a vary wide sector of the political opposition toward this president. This goes back quite some way. It has been palpable since the very first days of the Administration.
Would the person who was at Gettysburg when President Lincoln gave his speech please identify yourself and provide us with an unedited recording of exactly what Mr. Lincoln said? It would appear that all the versions with the phrase, “under God” were written well after Mr. Lincoln gave his speech.
Until such time, would someone please tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
@Scout
“I have been completely perplexed for five years at the animosity and hysteria that typify the reaction of many people toward Obama.” Really Scout? Do you honestly believe Mitch McConnell from deep in the heart of Kentucky wanted to make President Obama a “one term president” because of his politics or is there something deeper and darker? All one has to do on any given day is cruze around the Internet and read all the racial/religious about the president. Mitch McConnell “et al” simply don’t want that, “black SOB”, in their “White” House. There is so much denial about that issue in this country that it is unbelievable. Liberal whites who profess no racial bias want to believe that all white folks feel as they do. NOT. Perhaps I am wrong but I think not. I come from what was a Jim Crow town in Oklahoma so my auditory system and general awareness were imprinted early on with the now unmentionable “N” word. So please don’t delude yourself about why there is so much hatred for our president.
McConnell has an Asian wife.
@Moon-howler
So does former Senator Jim Webb. So?
I resist the idea that the impetus for all this hatred is racial, George, but I do so hopefully, not empirically.
I guess McConnell and the others are now determined that this President be limited to being a two-term president. And they haven’t figure out how to behave themselves differently than when they were trying to ensure that he was a one-term president.
“Politically unhappy”? Ho, ho! Nay, Moon, me thinks it is you and your friends who are the unhappy ones while you watch the administration get roasted for their incompetence and misjudgement of public reaction.
Benghazi. Absolutely a lie — a ridiculous lie which lasted nearly a week even in the face of contrary intelligence. CIA reporting from Benghazi to Tripoli and from Tripoli to Washington via our advanced communications would have told Washington operations centers and duty officers almost immediately that there was no demonstration about a video and that it was a straight out terrorist attack. To blame a video demonstration in the first hours could be labelled as a WH mistake. But pushing that story at the public for almost a week made it into a lie. As they say, the cover up is the thing that gets you.
ACA. Look at it this way. If you had actually read that humongous law, you would have known that many people would be in danger of losing their current health insurance policies and their doctors. To say otherwise would be a blatant lie contrary to what you knew. If you had NOT read the law and still gave the same assurances to the public , you were giving them something as truth when you didn’t know whether it was accurate or not. Neither one is excusable. And Rep Steny Hoyer let the cat out of the bag some time ago by admitting that the Dem Congressional leadership knew all along about the threat to insurance policies and retention of personal doctors, even as POTUS was denying it.
Lies. They always get you. And then there is the one about the IRS having no contact whatsoever with the White House over the Tea Party and other applications for tax exempt status……………….
Oh, come now, Scout. After that blatant attempt to whitewash POTUS, can we expect you to shine his shoes and iron his undershorts as well?
As for this POTUS and his repeat of the Gettysburg Address, I didn’t hear it and don’t really care. In fact, I heard the original when I traveled by horseback up to Gettysburg and was in the front row when Abe spoke at the cemetery. He autographed my official programme later.
WELL, YOU GUYS SEEM TO BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING!!!!!!!
Wolverine, your problem is that you mistakenly think that your opinion is a majority opinion.
I suppose you thought yours was the majority opinion in 2012 also?
#5 —- I wonder if Satan heard Mr. Bentley’s shout out? I hope Mr. Bentley realizes that Daniel Webster is dead and no longer able to debate with the Devil.
Well, Moon, you asked me to explain why; and I gave you my answer. All you’ve got is that old “majority opinion” shibboleth? Instead, why don’t YOU take Benghazi and ACA and tell us why YOU think they do not qualify as lies by this administration.
And, yes, I do have a problem. It is with this administration playing fast and loose with the truth. And not even able to do it with skill or cleverness.
It seems to me that all politicians lie, some more than others, some are better at it than others, but they all lie.
So the nature of the lie becomes important. Obama has lied in an attempt to provide and improve healthcare. Benghazi wasn’t a lie- the administration called it an act of terror almost immediately.
Bush lied about the reason to attack another sovereign nation (WMD in Iraq) and about his White House vindictively outing Valerie Plame and endangering other agents in the process. Reagan lied about his White House engineering the effort to sell weapons to terrorists and undermining the constitution in the process (Iran-Contra). Nixon lied about Watergate and all his other “dirty tricks.” Clinton lied about cheap semi-sex in the Oval.
Lying to the American public is never acceptable, but it’s obvious that the nature of the lie makes a difference. The only one above impeached for his actions was the guy (the only Democrat) who couldn’t keep his ___ in his pants- not those whose lies led to people dying. Amazing how people forget these things..
@George S. Harris ” So please don’t delude yourself about why there is so much hatred for our president.”
Oh, the irony that clearly escapes you. That’s a mighty broad brush with which you paint, Mr. Harris.
Benghazi was a lie pure and simple. The issue was not calling it an “act of terror” but the implication/claim that it was a spontaneous demonstration against the American-made video which got out of control. It was not, and that would have been obvious immediately to those DS and CIA agents fighting at the consulate and the annex. That would have been reported immediately, probably through commo equipment in the Annex during the second phase of the battle. That the Administration spent so long talking about the video makes it obvious they were not telling us what intelligence told them.
The video was inexcusable and did cause demonstrations in some areas.
Some folks always need a fall guy though. It might as well be Hillary and the Prez. If it makes you feel better, go for it.
As you can see, it didn’t impact the election.
Nice try though.
Madam, your partisan loyalty seems to make you ignore the realities of how certain things work or do not work in this world. Fall guy, horsefeathers. The captain of an operational ship always bears the blame. In the case of Benghazi, the blame is well deserved; and the sins of ommission and commission have been abundantly repeated, in my opinion, in other more recent actions such as the IRS and ACA. The failure to reinforce security when the field leader warned repeatedly of impending danger was a major error, more so since Libya was supposed to be a showpiece of our Arab Spring foreign policy. The lies afterward told me that Captain Obama and First Mate Clinton were afraid to reveal the pre-incident failures on their watch and were willing, as the election approached, either to zip lip or tell falsehoods. Accept it. In a public crisis both turned out to have feet of clay.
I don’t give a crap whether or not the election was affected. I was out there in the field a long time trying to protect diplomatic missions under terrorist threat and have actually been in one which was being attacked by a mob, with US Marines locked and loaded on the roof. I do not look kindly on “captains” back in Washington who kiss off the dangers to their troops in the field and then tell falsehoods about it. I especially feel negative about the top man who seems to claim too often as a personal excuse that no one on his team told him what was going on — with the ACA rollout as a prime example. Either the guy is not being square with us or his control over his own team is supsect.
@Emma
I love a broad brush–it covers up so much bullshit.
@Wolverine
Interesting that you speak of my partisanship while you unleash on Obama over health care and Benghazi.
I see the uproar over Benghazi as totally partisan with one desired result. It didn’t pan out.
Since you weren’t there for the fireworks, I expect you are relying on a great deal of information that is out there for pure political purposes or for personal gain like Morgan Jones/Dylan Davies.