1. News & Issues
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Discuss in my forum

David Emery

Did Obama Omit 'Under God' from the Gettysburg Address? No.

By November 19, 2013

Follow me on:

Via Facebook:
Obama omits under god from gettysburg address

What better day than the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to have a political kerfuffle about President Obama's faith?

At issue is Obama's on-camera rendition of the speech for Ken Burns' documentary, The Address. It differs from readings contributed by other luminaries (including former president G.W. Bush) in that the phrase "under God" is missing from the clause, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."

Does this constitute proof, as is being alleged, of "anti-Christian bigotry" and disrespect for religion, history, tradition, and America itself on Obama's part?

Of course not. This is a phony controversy.

As stated on Burns' website, Obama was asked to read an early version of the speech known as the Nicolay copy (named for Lincoln's personal secretary), in which not only is the phrase "under God" nowhere to be found but there are several additional wordings that vary from the standard text we all memorized in grade school.

If you compare Obama's reading with Nicolay's fair copy, you'll find they are word-for-word identical. Obama didn't edit or paraphrase the speech. He read the exact text he was asked to read.

You can compare all of the various drafts of the address on Abraham Lincoln Online.

Further reading:
Obama Strips God from Gettysburg Address - WesternJournalism.com
Obama Wouldn't Strip "Under Allah" from the Gettysburg Address - WorldNetDaily.com
Carney Explains Obama "Omission" of God from Gettysburg Address - Mediaite.com


November 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm
(1) Brian Jorgensen says:

While there are five copies (Lincoln manuscripts) of these famous words there is only one actual speech.
What Lincoln actually said differs from all 5 copies.
The text of his actual words may be found on the from page of The New York Times of Nov 20 1863.
The times report in includes pauses for applause and Lincoln did actually say “That the nation shall under God shall have a new birth of freedom…
Why would Burns occupy himself with imperfect copies which are incidental to the actual speech?
And why under any circumstance would he not clearly explain the difference?

November 19, 2013 at 6:57 pm
(2) Jim says:

Not only is Brian Jorgensen right, but that the words that appear at the Lincoln Memorial contain the words “under God” as stated in the Bliss copy which is the only signed and dated copy by Lincoln. This copy is displayed in the Lincoln Room at the White House. Mr President should have taken the time to read the correct version.

November 19, 2013 at 7:25 pm
(3) David Emery says:

Hey, all’s fair in politics so grind your axes all you want, boys, but the plain fact is that Obama read the text he was asked to read.

November 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm
(4) Bob Hawkes says:

Ax grinding aside, I have to wonder what the motivation was for having Obama read a version other than the one that Lincoln actually delivered.

November 19, 2013 at 8:34 pm
(5) BB says:

So now we know Urban Legends is bigoted as well. If you’re going to recite something, it should be verbatim. Otherwise, it is a paraphrase.

November 19, 2013 at 8:37 pm
(6) BB says:

If he didn’t recite verbatim what Lincoln said, it is a paraphrase. Regardless of what Bob says. Urban Legends lost credibility with their “editorial.”

November 19, 2013 at 8:44 pm
(7) Brian Jorgensen says:

Of the Presidents, only Obama reads from the Nicolay copy, all the other presidents recite the actual speech rather read from a copy.
So what happened; did Burns say something like “here you go Mr. President read from this script”?
Perhaps they made several takes using all the copies plus the real Lincoln speech, then cherry picked the one they liked or Burns liked or Obama liked?
We’ll never know unless someone explains, and is it not reasonable to expect an explanation?

November 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
(8) David Emery says:

Brian Jorgensen asks, “is it not reasonable to expect an explanation?”

Sure it is. But since when is this a reasonable discussion? What’s reasonable about leaping to the accusation of “anti-Christian bigotry”? Mightn’t someone have asked for an explanation before doing that?

November 19, 2013 at 9:01 pm
(9) Brian Jorgensen says:

Who mentioned anything about anti Christian bigotry?
Methinks you presume too much.

November 19, 2013 at 9:51 pm
(10) pam says:

@Brian Jorgensen

third paragraph in the article above

Does this constitute proof, as is being alleged, of “anti-Christian bigotry,” of disrespect for religion, tradition, history, and America itself on Obama’s part?

i think that is what he was talking about :)

November 20, 2013 at 1:15 am
(11) The Truth says:

Obama is the anti-christ, he will lead Americas complete and utter destruction in one hour, remember that old man, remember that!

November 20, 2013 at 1:49 am
(12) SCHROCK28 says:

Did you say phony controversy? I think it is quite the controversy considering he decided to go against the norm. In fact reciting the Gettysburg Address from an author other than the original is quite controversial in itself. Do us a favor and quit blindly defending Obama when he decides not to embrace actual history.

November 20, 2013 at 7:00 am
(13) Crushed Luminary says:

Bull hocky! David Emery is a Liar! Hear… listen for yourselves… http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/19/watch-obama-leaves-god-out-of-gettysburg-address-87493

November 20, 2013 at 8:15 am
(14) Ron F. says:

It was foolish for him to read the Nicolay copy unless it was part of a historic account and included an explanation. Even then, our sitting President was the wrong one for the part. This was either a setup to make him look bad or, at the very least, incredibly bad judgment. An explanation and apology should have been immediate.

November 20, 2013 at 8:24 am
(15) Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing says:

I ususally don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories, but even skeptics have to wonder why this President chooses to leave God out of his recitation of historical documents. Does anyone really think the President of the United States cannot control what is chosen for him to recite on camera? The essay written in his own hand says he oft reads the signed copy in the White House….a copy with the phrase ‘under God’.

So your argument is the he is so stupid/incompetent/insensitive that he would not question the copy he was given to read; given that it omits a phrase he’s been critized for omitting in the past?

November 20, 2013 at 10:01 am
(16) Derek says:

Yes. Of course it shows “anti-Christian bigotry,” a disrespect for religion, tradition, history, and America itself. After all that Obama has done since January 2009, it’s hard to disavow the knowledge that he is a Muslim. Raised as a Muslim, acting as a Muslim (even bowing down in Mosques) … and he has had done EVERYTHING he can to assist the Muslim countries of the world, PARTICULARLY those involved in Terrorism. To claim at this point that he is a “Christian” is totally LUDICROUS!! Why would he be TOLD to read, and WHY would he read a text that he KNOWS eliminates the word “God”!? We know why. He believes in Allah, and shows it every chance he can get.

November 20, 2013 at 10:29 am
(17) flash says:

Starting with the first comment, you guys are offtrack. There is no way of knowing how accurate the NYT transcription actually was because it had to have been taken down via shorthand. Everything you’ve written since then is under a cloud of doubt.

November 20, 2013 at 11:09 am
(18) Alan Hills says:

No-one has the right to change historical fact to suit their purposes. The Gettysburg Address is and remains one of the world’s most powerful and enduring speeches. There was a Los Angeles teacher who was caught teaching her students the Bill of Rights, deliberately omitting the Second Amendment – because she didn’t personally believe in it. Are we also going to allow a teacher to omit other constitutional freedoms because they doesn’t suit their ideology? Obama is a meddler, a liberal tinkerer with a liberal goal to strip America of her greatness, to humiliate her and humble her success – indeed to bring her to her knees. Liberalism thrives on guilt, pity and envy. The problem for him and his minions is that America can no longer help the rest of the world, as she has done throughout her existence while on her knees.

November 20, 2013 at 11:39 am
(19) Jay McHue says:

I guess maybe they should’ve come up with a new version that said “under Allah and his Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”

November 20, 2013 at 1:25 pm
(20) Jeremy says:

The teleprompter president is like Ron Burgundy: he’ll read anything put in front of him, it seems. I’ll accept that as an explanation, as sad as it may be.

What’s probably more concerning, however, is that it didn’t seem to occur to anybody in the administration that when commemorating the reading of a speech with the reading of that same speech, it would be advisable to actually recite the correct version. Shouldn’t that be obvious to any halfway intelligent person?

November 20, 2013 at 1:33 pm
(21) Okraholic says:

To point this to President Obama as a controversy is futile at best. There is no way for him to have known what he was reading, thus innocent by way of plausible deniability once again.

November 20, 2013 at 3:27 pm
(22) Bruce says:

I feel sorry for most of those leaving comments here. What a sad, sorry lot you are. Your disregard for the office of the Presidency sickens me. We the People elected Mr. Obama and because of that fact alone, he deserves your respect.

November 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm
(23) Blake says:

So Obama just looks like an idiot for not saying the same words as everyone else, but he’s not really an idiot for agreeing to say the same words as anyone else?

He really shouldn’t be expected to comprehend that his choice to read a version that omits the words “under God” will be jumped on by his detractors, should he?

He’s not that terribly clever, being a puppet and all…

November 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm
(24) Timray says:

i think this has to do more with the facts that most of President Obama’s circle is secular than anything else. look at his church attendance, no i am not saying he isn’t Christian….it is just not part of his life

November 20, 2013 at 5:44 pm
(25) Karl Lew says:

The comment that Obama “didn’t know” is lame. Maybe he actually didn’t know, but he didn’t know about the IRS. He didn’t know about Benghazi. He didn’t know about the bungled ACA website. He didn’t know about Fast and Furious. Which leaves one question. “MR OBAMA, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?”

November 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm
(26) Pissed says:

@ David,

How do you know what Obama was asked to read, are you a buddy of Ken Burns?

You must be psychic……

November 20, 2013 at 8:04 pm
(27) ManInTheStreet says:

@Karl Lew Obama knew where Bin Laden was.

November 20, 2013 at 9:06 pm
(28) Desirae says:

I agree that the text we all know today clearly states “under God”. However there is still questions that what we all know today is actually what he truly said during the speech. I am not sure why Ken Burns wanted this version read but he did. I go into much more detail on my blog about all of this. http://www.totbinlife.blogspot.com

November 20, 2013 at 11:02 pm
(29) cato says:

Wow, the comments on this make me worry about the future of this country. Who on earth CARES if he chooses or is asked to read something that doesn’t include “under God”?? Last I checked this is a secular nation, not a theocracy like all those terrorist brown people countries….
Bunch of lunatics…

November 20, 2013 at 11:43 pm
(30) lella says:

There can only be ONE Gettysburg Address and that is the one that Lincoln spoke. Everything else is a DRAFT. The text of what Lincoln actually spoke is the Gettysburg Address.

November 21, 2013 at 8:00 am
(31) Andy says:

Ken Burns is covering for Obama’s choice to read an early draft of the Gettysburg Address instead of the actual speech. Probably the only way Obama agreed to do it. A shame for Ken Burns. He’s lost all credibility with me.

Of course he knows what he is doing. He did it. How can the most intelligent man in the room not know exactly what he is doing. He is the Community Organizer in Chief. Everything he does has a political calculus. Devoted not to God and Country, but his radical dream to bring America down to a level playing field with every other country. He has stated that he believes that America is exceptional in the same way that every country thinks of themselves as exceptional. Well that means no country is exceptional. His devotion is to fulfill his training with Saul Alinsky. This is simply another way for him to cause a distraction and further erode the concept that we are a nation under God. He must destroy the Founder’s idea that men have inalienable rights endowed by their creator. These are natural rights in that we are born with them. Obama’s goal is to destroy that concept in favor of an all powerful government that decides what rights people have.

It is time for conservatives to wake up to his goals and motives and get involved. Most of you liberals don’t even grasp the concept and give him a pass as if he is an innocent bystander trying to prevent the mess he created. You play right into his hands. I wonder what it must feel like to manipulated so voluntarily. Those that do understand him and work to fulfill his vision are America’s enemies. All this was known before he was elected if you had open your eyes to the truth. I have tremendous respect for the office of the President, but when the occupant of that office blatantly offends it he must be called out for who he is and not who you want him to be.

November 21, 2013 at 8:49 am
(32) Mae Johnson says:

Oh for God’s sake, you republicans will stop at nothing to try to smear this president. You are petty, small-minded, ignorant, unAmerican, and unChristian. I am sick to death of your bigotry and stupidity. This country needs action, not your racist, underhanded, deliberate attempts to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to destroy President Obama AND this country because you lost the election.

November 21, 2013 at 8:50 am
(33) Loretta says:

I have to wonder WHY he was given the copy that he read? Was it so that he didn’t have to say “under God?”

November 21, 2013 at 8:56 am
(34) Gerard says:

Never let facts get in the way of your preconceived prejudices & hatred.

The “Learn the Address” website clearly states:

“Did you know that there are five versions of the Gettysburg Address? We asked President Obama to read the first, the “Nocolay Version.”

November 21, 2013 at 10:00 am
(35) andy says:

To Mae Johnson: I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat just like you. Except I am conservative who is trying to save the country. The only way I can influence politics in the Peoples Republic of Maryland is to vote in the Democrat primary. Your comments prove my point, and they are the exact opposite of the truth. Typical liberal You employ the classic Saul Alinsky tactics to try to destroy me. Call me names and dutifully repeat the talking points spouted to you by the radical liberals in power. Obama takes you as a fool who can be manipulated as he wishes and he is backed up by the corrupt liberal media. If I had my choice I would elect Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams over anybody else if they were running. Last I checked they are all black. I don’t care because I am not racist. They are true Americans who believe in America as it was created, not some radical utopian view of a nanny state with equal misery for all. Except for those in power. Obama will say and do anything to achieve that goal, and he is counting on you to believe him. Well done.

And to Gerard: The Burn’s site just added that note about 5 versions of the Address. Here is the cache of the previous site: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.learntheaddress.org/
They are trying to cover their butts. And I wasn’t aware that Lincoln gave 5 different speeches that day in Gettysburg. There is only one Gettysburg Address. You should try getting the facts. You might find out who Obama really is and why he does what he does.

November 21, 2013 at 11:35 am
(36) Marvin says:

Classical “tempest in a teacup.” Ignorance is, of course, rampant in the world, but it’s terribly sad that so many of this country’s primary religion’s members are so thin skinned. Ignorance and touchiness about the sketchiness of their religion can be the only explanation.

FWIW, the Muslims I know, admittedly mostly NOI, use the terms God and Allah interchangeably. There may be those who refuse to say God, but I know of Jews and Christians who also would, except in prayer.

November 21, 2013 at 11:50 am
(37) Ed says:

Bob Hawkes (comment #4) above nails it: “Ax grinding aside, I have to wonder what the motivation was for having Obama read a version other than the one that Lincoln actually delivered.”
What was the motivation to have the President read something that was inaccurate?! That’s the real question! Obama just did what he was asked to do. At who’s behest was the inacurrate format chosen – let’s get an answer to that first, before drawing conclusions.

November 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm
(38) Kermit Rose says:

Hey everyone.

This argument is silly.

I found a photo copy of the original handwritten address on the internet.


I can tell from that picture that Lincoln

DID NOT say the words “under God” in his address.

Kermit Rose

November 21, 2013 at 12:08 pm
(39) Kermit Rose says:

The original hand written copy of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is at


Lincoln did NOT say the words “under God”.

Kermit Rose

November 21, 2013 at 12:35 pm
(40) Andy says:

Hey Kermit you are the silly one. There is a difference between Lincoln’s drafts of his speech and the actual speech. Lincoln said “under God” probably because he thought it was important to emphasize it when he actually delivered the speech. That’s kind of the whole point as to this discussion. Here is the text of the draft you refer to and the actual words spoken below that.
In my opinion Obama found a convenient loophole in a sense that some of buy hook line and sinker to get out of saying under God. This is not new for Obama. He does this all the time. He will change history to fit his needs or motives. It’s the historical speech that we celebrate not his notes.
Ed do you honestly believe that Obama just did what he was told to do. That is incredibly naive. Obama tells other people what to do not the other way around. My opinion is that Obama told Ken he would read that draft version or he wouldn’t do it all. Burn’s should of told to take a hike

November 21, 2013 at 12:37 pm
(41) Kermit Rose says:


The above web page is the final answer to this controversy.

The first of five copies is excerpted as follows.

that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom,


Note that the words “under God” are not in this copy.

The first version of the address is noteworthy for a variety of reasons. As the Library of Congress (LOC) notes, “This document is presumed to be the only working, or pre-delivery, draft and is commonly identified as the Nicolay Copy because it was once owned by John George Nicolay, Lincoln’s private secretary.”

The second copy is excerpted as follows:

—; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people,


Again, note that the words, “under God” are not present.

This second version of the address was given to Lincoln’s secretary John Hay. His descendants then donated it to the LOC in 1916. Like the “Nicolay Draft,” this version is most closely tied to the November 19 speech the president delivered.

The third copy is excerpted as follows:

—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and

Note that this third copy does have the words “under God” present.

Go to


to see more easily all five versions handwritten by Lincoln.

The first two copies written near the time of the speech do not
contain the words “under God”.

The last three copies, written somewhat later, after Lincoln had opportunities to be advised by other politicians of what to say,
do have the words “under God” present.

In my opinion, Obama was well advised to read from one of the copies that omitted the words “under God”.

Kermit Rose

November 21, 2013 at 1:10 pm
(42) Dan D says:

No one knows for certain whether Lincoln said “Under God” in his speech. Remember, there were no recordings, no commercial typewriters or short hand machines. And presidents didn’t routinely hand out the text of their speech to papers beforehand. Therefore, the address as printed in the times is a reporters hand written copy. Unless you’re trained in taking dictation, writing as quickly as someone speaks is essentially impossible, so there are almost definitely transcription errors. It seems likely that the phrase was included, because a couple of different reporter’s transcriptions include it, but it is possible that those reporters cribbed off each other because they were unable to get the complete address.

Neither of the two versions written before the address include it. The signed and dated copy that has become the “standard” text was written after the fact as part of a charity auction. The version that Obama read is considered to be the most likely candidate for the written version that Lincoln was working from, so if the “under god” phrase was present it was an extemporaneous addition by that president at that time.

November 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm
(43) Castanea says:

Comments that accuse Obama of somehow avoiding saying the words “under God” merely demonstrate how pathetic and ignorant his political opponents are.

Obama has used the words “god bless America” many times at the end of speeches, but somehow because he read, as requested, the initial draft of the Gettysburg Address, which left out “under God,” Obama demonstrates … what? His commitment to historical accuracy? The fact he is the antichrist?

How many of Obama’s critics recite the Pledge of Allegiance as it was initially written (by a socialist, no less) without the words “under God”? How many of Obama’s critics chide Lincoln for not including the words “under God” in his original draft?

To follow the same line of reasoning as a previous commenter, there can be only one Pledge of Allegiance, and that is the one written by Bellamy. Therefore, anyone who speaks the words “under God” while reciting the pledge is a liar, a hypocrite, and un-American. What kind of evilness motivates them and their desire to re-write American history, I wonder. America needs to be rescued from lunatics like them.

November 21, 2013 at 1:31 pm
(44) Andy says:

There are five draft versions of the speech. For a little historical perspective, Lincoln’s use of “under God” is sometimes disputed — mostly by those who object to those words today. The words do not appear in two historic drafts (Nicolay and Hay) but do appear in three drafts (Everett, Bancroft, and Bliss). However, the best evidence of what Lincoln said is the verbatim text of his speech, which was telegraphed by numerous journalists to their newspapers on the very day he delivered his address.
Among the journalists in witness were Joseph Gilbert with the Associated Press, John Young with the Philadelphia Press (who would later become Librarian of Congress), Charles Hale with the Boston Advertiser, and other reporters from the New York Tribune and The New York Times. Each of their telegraphs included the words “under God,” and as noted by historian William E. Barton:
“Every stenographic report, good, bad and indifferent, says ‘that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.’ There was no common source from which all the reporters could have obtained those words but from Lincoln’s own lips at the time of delivery.”

So why did Obama choose to omit these essential words?

Barack Obama has a long history of omitting references to God, such as his repeated omission of “endowed by our Creator” when referencing the Declaration of Independence.

So what is Obama’s overarching objective?

Under the pretense of “religious tolerance,” Barack Obama’s administration has been quietly advancing his mandate to remove all expressions or manifestations of faith from government forums — excepting Islam. This eradication serves the Left’s strategic objective of replacing God-given Rule of Law with the rule of men — because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that Liberty is the gift of potentates and presidents.

November 21, 2013 at 1:52 pm
(45) Tucsontoes says:

You’re kidding, right? Why would anyone say “shall under God shall.” President Obama is probably the most Christian of anyone in DC. This piddly nonsense is right up there with hand on wrong side in pledge (lie) or didn’t wear a flag pin (lie). We have kids starving from republican cuts in food assistance and 22 percent of our vets living on the street, with republicans killing funding for the returning vets and this is what you want — to keep on with this trite and stupid crap!

November 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm
(46) Mack Hall says:

I had occasion to use an axe often when I was a farm boy, but less so now. One should never grind an axe, of course. While that is a speedy way of sharpening that tool, grinding shortens its useful life. Use a good file instead, and use the time required for thinking about what’s really important in life.

November 21, 2013 at 3:06 pm
(47) Mary Kolk says:

Must Ado Over Nothing. People need to get a life and get their heads out of their posterior. Why did Obama leave “under God” out when he recited the Gettysburg Address? OMG! How Awful! Even though there are 5 version of the Gettysburg Address and he was handed the one that was an earlier version that did not have “under God” in it.

The same people that are crying foul over this incredibly frivolous event were applauding President G. W. Bush when he ordered the “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq. The horrific consequences resulted in the loss of so many thousands of lives of our brave military as well as innocent Iraq citizens.

Omitting the words “under God” even if it WAS intentional and it wasn’t is clearly is Much Ado Over Nothing. Let’s get our priorities straight.

I’ll take eliminating “under God” over “shock and awe” any day!

November 21, 2013 at 3:21 pm
(48) chas Zehner says:

Don’t you folks have anything better to do?

November 21, 2013 at 4:24 pm
(49) Tom C says:

Next month they’ll try to tell us that Obama (not Bush) banned Christmas trees from the White House.

November 21, 2013 at 4:37 pm
(50) Jeannie Ott says:

Mr. Burns, republican speakers are reporting President Obama took it on himself to omit the words under god while reading his portion of “The Address” this needs to be corrected by you the producer… Mr. Burns we need you engage in a call-in-visit with MSNBC, CNN, and mainly with the misinformers of fox news to explain President Obama’s participation with The Address. The degrading reports are all over despicable right wing radio, Rush “the buffoon” seems excited as he repeat’s the big lie…
The lie is flooding the internet, fox news continues to repeat the misinformation, please correct and thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincere Ken Burns fan.
Jeannie Ott

November 21, 2013 at 4:39 pm
(51) Andy says:

Funny you should mention that. Who knew Obama had a Christmas Tree Tax.

Michelle loves Christmas Trees. She had 54 in the White House last year. Double the typical amount.

November 21, 2013 at 7:03 pm
(52) Charles Yaker says:

Requiring anybody to say “Under G-d” to prove his or her patriotism is an Oxymoron (look it up if you don’t know” article six of the US Constitution says no Religeous test. So anybody who requires a religious test is saying they don’t care about the Constitution of the US.

November 21, 2013 at 10:27 pm
(53) cvtre says:

Yikes! Will they ever give up? Stupid is as stupid believes and anyone who believes FOX or Rush is really, really… well, you know. Please give it up, the election is over you dolts, Obama won fair and square, unlike Bush, and he’ll only be around a couple more years – hopefully like the republican congress.

November 22, 2013 at 7:33 am
(54) Robert Copeland says:

Some teacher somewhere once chided his very religious critics by accusing them of “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.” The religious right brings this comment to mind – they seem to want to make a big deal over the fact that Obama read for a film a copy of a speech given by Lincoln which apparently the producer of the film, rightly or wrongly, believed was likely the most historically accurate version. They then say that because Obama read what he was given, he must hate America and Christianity. Yet they’re fine, for examples, with the fact that the heirs to the Walton fortune (the founder of Walmart) have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of America. But when “liberals” speak of addressing this problem of increasing income disparity they believe professional liars Ike Limbaugh who tell them that wanting to create a country where everyone can have a decent job at a living wage and people aren’t losing their life savings because they get sick; well wanting that means that what they are really saying is that everyone should make the same amount of money and that no one should have a bigger house than anyone else. I’m serious, that’s what Limbaugh was saying that the left wants. This, of course, is total “horse hockey” but the kind of nonsense that some of his very gullible listeners actually believe. And did it ever occur to you conspiracy nuts out there that maybe being the POTUS carries with it some pretty big responsibilities and that making sure that the version of a speech you’ve been given to read doesn’t contain, or in this case omit, a couple words which the lunatic fringe might jump on might not be one’s highest priority? I am a Christian, but somewhere I got the idea that helping the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned is more important than going around saying “Lord Lord” or, in this case, making sure that a version of a speech you’re requested to read doesn’t omit the phase “under God”.

November 22, 2013 at 8:05 am
(55) Andy says:

Charles can’t even type the word God. What are you afraid of? Is there something wrong with the concept that this country was founded and has existed because we created a Government that was designed to protect our individual rights, and the reason we have rights in the first place is not because a benevolent King has granted them, its because they are inherent in our makeup. God does not represent a proclamation of any religious faith, but a recognition that there is a power much greater than us. If we lose sight of that then we subject ourselves to the whims of whomever is in power. America is the free-est nation ever conceived because of that recognition. You trash it at your own peril. Ask yourself which other Godless tyrannical regime would you prefer to born in? How about North Korea that sounds nice. Human history consists largely of human misery, all forms of enslavement, and basic survival. Why you “Progressives” want to go back to some form of that bleek existence is beyond me. Now go say a prayer to your savior Obama.

November 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
(56) Chaz believer says:

You would be foolish not to see that America, like Greece and Rome had reached her pinnacle and is now in decline. This is through no fault of Obama. It is simply history repeating itself. We have become, much like Rome a nation by and for the wealthy. This will be our downfall as the middle class is destroyed and the wealthy become more so and the poor become more so. The truth is any form of government man creates does not work. That goes for Capitalism, Communist, Fascism, and socialism as well. They all depend on great world wars for their success. We are entering a period in time as in the day of Andrew Carnagy and the other robber barons of the past. We have become a nation that has no end to the depts. one can fall, like an endless black hole. God help America!

November 22, 2013 at 4:37 pm
(57) bweazel says:

Ok…. so what you’re trying to say is that Obama did leave out Under God. That’s what we all thought… don’t insult our intelligence.

November 22, 2013 at 7:03 pm
(58) Charles Yaker says:


Along with my drawing attention to Article Six which also allows for affirmation as well as swearing I was making a point that I suspect very few people would recognize. Orthodox Jews do not say or write the name of their deity in English they write G-d and in Hebrew ” Ha Shem” which translates as “The Name”

However while the Decleration of Independance mentions a creator the Constitution makes no reference to a deity. So you and I can to choose to believe or not believe as we choose and despite your disdain for those who don’t it is a sign of our greatness that it is none of your business.

November 22, 2013 at 11:07 pm
(59) Jason Brier says:

I did not vote for Obama for his first or second term. I do not support his policies, but i DO respect the office. There are so many rumors about Obama, you can write a book. This instance of him reading draft copy is just one of the many rumors. Yes, I am sure he left out “under God”, but I believe it was NOT his will to omit it from the copy he was provided. He read the copy verbatim, so get over it already and move on.

November 23, 2013 at 12:01 am
(60) Cindy Bear says:

Yes, About.Com is bigoted/biased and so is Snopes. So what else is new?

November 23, 2013 at 9:39 am
(61) albaby says:

Maybe they wanted Obama to read Lincolns original thoughts, not what was left after his advisors edited it.

November 23, 2013 at 9:43 am
(62) albaby says:

According to some posters, everyone who doesn’t share their opinion is a bigot, just like those who feel anyone that doesn’t agree with Obama is a racist.

November 23, 2013 at 10:00 am
(63) Charles Yaker says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:12 pm
(64) Johnnie Ashley says:

We have only a few years to be fornicate enough to live on earth before returning to dust.
Let’s not occupy ourselves with this sort of complaining or other issue that don’t matter. Let’s consider this day as the day that the Creator of the Almighty God made and be happy in it as recorded in the holly bible.

November 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm
(65) Bruce says:

It may be worth noting that Abraham Lincoln himself had no strong religious beliefs; he is usually thought to have been a skeptic rather than just an agnostic. This would be consistent with the view that he deliberately omitted “under God” from the Gettysburg Address, and that it was later inserted in order to conform to popular belief.

November 24, 2013 at 10:39 am
(66) Brian says:

The two only original copies of the speech, Nicolay Copy & Hay Copy, do not have the words “under God” in them. Both of these copies are in Library of Congress. The other copies of the speech were written, to be use as a fundraiser for soldiers, several months after the speech was give. So “under God” might have just been an ad lib or may have never been it the speech at all. There is no way to know for sure. To imply anything to the Obama’s reading of this copy over the other is just outrageously bigoted viewpoint.

November 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm
(67) Andy says:

Bruce. Lincoln was thought to have been a skeptic early in life. He had no official profession of a specific religion, but he he did believe in an all-powerful God that shaped events.

Next week, we observe with reverence our timeless Thanksgiving holiday, which has been celebrated appropriately throughout our history. We do so as a nation, because a month before his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln officially designated a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens,” on the fourth Thursday of November.

In his proclamation, Lincoln referenced the “ever watchful providence of Almighty God.” He noted of our innumerable blessings, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God,” and recommended “offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him,” that we all may “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace.”

Of course, the first Thanksgiving proclamation was issued by George Washington in 1789. He declared, “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God,” that all Americans should “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…”

That history notwithstanding, last year, as with all his previous Thanksgiving addresses, Barack Obama refused to credit our Creator in acknowledgment of Thanksgiving, just as he has omitted God from other historic references.

At the conclusion of his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln affirmed, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” That reference was to our constitutional republic, not Obama’s vision for the People’s Socialist Democratic Republic.

November 25, 2013 at 1:39 pm
(68) Justin says:

The obvious, normal, natural and rational thing to do is to read the version everyone knows about. The version that is recognized by all Americans, the version that is memorized by students, the version that inspires young men and women, the version that appears in books and movies, the version 99.999% of the population expected he would read. So, why did Obama read the version he read – something that was completely unexpected? Why?

If he just read what he was told to read, and did not even know that he was going to surprise everyone, then he can’t help appearing, well, a tad foolish to say the least. If he did know he was going to surprise everyone, but still read it anyway, then he must have had some reason for his extraordinary course of action, and it is safe to say that, whatever reason he had, it is not something all Americans can sympathize with. So, either Obama is a bumbling fool who hardly knew what he was reading, or an obnoxious jerk who did something no one imagined he would do just to make some bizarre point.

November 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm
(69) Pat says:

Why would Obama have been asked to read anything other than the famous speech Lincoln was know for? That doesn’t even make sense. If you’re going to quote someone, quote him directly. Look at Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech. From what I understand the original,
written copy does not have those words, but those are the very words everyone remembers and quotes.

November 30, 2013 at 10:48 am
(70) Robert says:

I have kept Urban Legends on my bookmarks for years.
This is the article that is cause to DELETE it.
When it comes to politics….URBAN LEGENDS CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

February 24, 2014 at 6:46 pm
(71) JFarrell says:

It is discussions like this that led me out of the church never to return. Behold, theEvangelism of Idiocy.

Children starve, nations war with each other, and the Christian Right quibbles over why the president they have hated since they first heard his name didn’t say the word”God.”

If the time spent writing these diatribes was, instead, used to feed a child, send a note of encouragement to a prisoner or, for, that matter, pick up candy wrappers from the gutter, this world would already be a better place.

Instead, it is a little dirtier.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>
  1. About.com
  2. News & Issues
  3. Urban Legends

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.