Words matter...



Rep. Fleming blasts President Obama for leaving out "under God" from Lincoln speech




Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, and conservative talk show hosts are blasting President Barack Obama for omitting an "under God" reference in his recitation of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

The White House said the president read the first draft of the historic Civil War speech, known as the Nicolay version, which does not include the under God reference, as requested by film-maker Ken Burns , a statement confirmed by a Burns producer.

Ken Burns' website notes that there are five drafts of President Lincoln's famous speech written in his own hand, and three include the under God phrase and two do not. A Burns'�� representative told CNN that the filmmaker asked Obama to read the Nicolay draft to show the speech has multiple versions.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president "read the version of the address, Ken Burns provided."

Fleming put out a press release criticizing the omission after the president was blasted by talk show host Rush Limbaugh, among others.

"��Whether you learned the Gettysburg Address in school or saw it recited in a movie or a documentary, you heard these words: 'that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.'��"

In Obama's reading, the under God reference isn'��t included.

Read Full Article

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_fleming_blasts_president_o.html


www.truenews.com

This, of course, is BS and I am sure the, mea culpas have been aired. As everyone knows there are five versions of the address, which Ken Burns gave out to be read. The version given to Obama does not contain the words "under G-d". This is another knee jerk reaction by the far right and their playing with the facts.

As POTUS, a representative of the people, and a professed "christian", knowing there would be such a reaction as has ALWAYS been the case in the past, wouldn't one think he would have objected simply on those grounds alone......but he did not......

actually it depends which version you read!
Some don't contain the particular phrase!