The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 11-21-2013

________________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 11-21-2013
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Getting Gettysburg Right
Lincoln v Obama -- Words Matter

By Mark Alexander

Nov. 21, 2013

“Our unalterable resolution would be to be free. They have attempted to subdue us by force, but God be praised! in vain. Their arts may be more dangerous than their arms. Let us then … under God trust our cause to our swords.” –Samuel Adams (1776)

This week, we marked the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, a three-minute speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. That battlefield was the site of the bloodiest conflict in the War Between the States, a three-day battle in July of 1863 that resulted in 23,000 Union casualties and 28,000 Confederate casualties.

Lincoln was a self-taught man whose formal schooling added up to less than one year. But he penned this remarkable, concise and eloquent address, which not only captured a pivotal moment in a war-torn nation, but also paid tribute with words that honored all Americans. And he managed to say it without teleprompters.

One notable catalyst, which sparked this horrific war, was the abolition of slavery. Lincoln’s party was Republican, but in a tragically ironic twist of fate, the Democrat Party1 has now mastered the cowing of 95% of black Americans as its most loyal constituency. They accomplished this transition by instituting social policies that have enslaved generations of poor people on urban poverty plantations2, and then ensuring their fealty with massive redistributive handouts and victimization indoctrination3 promoting dependency on the state.

Barack Obama, who used Lincoln’s Bible for his inaugurations and who envisions himself the finest legacy example of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation – though he has no slave ancestry on this continent – was narcissistically compelled to chime in on the anniversary recognition.

Notably, Obama offered up his videotaped recitation of the Gettysburg Address for historian Ken Burns' 150th anniversary Web dedication4 to Lincoln’s timeless words.

In his recitation of the address5, however, Obama predictably omitted two key words. Lincoln said, “that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” But Obama altered his recitation, leaving “under God” out.

For the record, Ken Burns recited it correctly6. George W. Bush was also among the handful of participants for Burns' project, and he recited it correctly7. Even Democrat National Chairwoman, ultra-leftist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recited it correctly8.

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.”

Indeed, as reported by The New York Times the day after Lincoln’s delivery, he included the words, “under God.” (That original text is posted here9). Historians may debate Lincoln’s legacy as president10, but there is no disputing his religious devotion and his very deliberate use of “under God” at Gettysburg.

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 omission11 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’s12 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 Law13 with the rule of men14 – because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty “endowed by our Creator15,” while the latter asserts that Liberty is the gift of potentates and presidents.

Obama’s administrators are constantly endeavoring to drive wedges between Liberty and its inherent foundational endowment11. Most notably, he has done this in those spheres where he can exercise regulatory power and influence without legislative and judicial interference – such as our military.

As commander in chief, Obama has certainly succeeded in suppressing religious expression by uniformed Patriots in our military service branches. However, his subversion of faith expression in the military is not going without objection.

For example, last year The Patriot uncovered what appeared to be a legal setup by Obama’s DoD civilian administrators and their surrogates, which had and still has the potential to force the removal of “so help me God” from all military oaths16. That strategic ploy starts with the 2011 removal of those words from officer, enlisted and cadet oaths at the Air Force Academy. Three weeks ago, we published a detailed update on that strategy17. This week, in response to that column, 28 members of Congress issued an official letter of inquiry to the Superintendent18 of the Air Force Academy asking for “a detailed explanation as to why [they omitted] ‘so help me God’ from these oaths, despite the fact that the phrase is used in the very statutory language of the United States Code, and was part of the military oath drafted by the Founders themselves.”

(A Fox News report notes the AFA’s Public Affairs Office claimed yesterday, “It was an editorial oversight19,” however, a Freedom of Information Act request will be filed tomorrow in an effort to determine if anyone outside the AFA had a hand in the alteration of oaths.)

Typical of the “expert opinion” syndicated across the nation about our nation’s Godly heritage, is that of Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Mark Thompson, who posted an op/ed in Time magazine on the “So help me God” issue. Thompson’s Pulitzer was earned for a series he wrote that led to enhanced military helicopter safety. Clearly it was not earned for his limited knowledge of civilian and military oaths.