Lack of Honesty in the News/Media

This was an article written by a Democratic Journalist about the lack of truth in the news/media! It is worth the long read!


Meridian Magazine

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

Wow Biden!

So I know everyone is going crazy with things to say about this,

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden “alive and well” and Pakistan “bristling with nuclear weapons.”
“You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region,” Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. “The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it’s real.”

“We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes,” he cautioned. “It’s so much more important than that. It’s so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.”

All of his words said are here.While I think it was a really bad time for him to say something like that(or good depending on who you are), every nation,that can, has probably heard and seen everything going on in this election. What are the thoughts of those that might be wanting to start something? Are terrorists thinking that it may be easier to get away with something because we might be more vulnerable with the change in the Presidency? Wouldn't you want to avoid any such worries in a champaign?It has been said that with every new President something has always happened in the first year, so I guess we'll see.There are a lot of questions out there on the internet and in many other places about this. There is confusion, separation and a lot of anger in our country right now. Other countries see this, as do our own people. It was a speech that people have been and will be thinking about in the next few weeks.

Again with all this being said I really do agree that with McCain's leadership of this Country(if he wins) that he is perfectly capable of not only being able to handle the threats that are out there, but also be able to deal with them head on if any does happen against our Country!

This is a great video as to why I too think that McCain will be great under any sort of attack. It's an oldie but goodie.

I found this AP Article, Missouri is quite a fan of Palin! This probably has already happen or is still happening as I write this.

A rally with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is being moved to a larger site in Springfield. Friday morning’s event was initially scheduled for an arena at Missouri State University.

But the party says all 4,000 tickets were snapped up within 90 minutes Wednesday morning at Republican headquarters in Greene and Christian counties. Hundreds more Palin fans were left empty-handed.

Palin’s “Road to Victory” rally will now take place instead in the parking lot of Bass Pro Shops in Springfield. The outdoor outfitter is one of Missouri’s biggest attractions. The event is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday. No tickets are needed.

The event is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday. No tickets are needed!

Go Palin!! I love that she is so down to earth and she has such great energy about her! It's no wonder why she had to move it to a bigger area!! I can't wait to see how many people actually showed up!

This I really do believe. I don't want any opinion of mine to get in the way of what I want people to know and understand.Sso here it is straight from the source.

To get to this original page and to use the other links on this page please use this link.

[David Kopel, September 23, 2008 at 4:32pm] Trackbacks

FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check:

FactCheck.org is an excellent project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. It a non-partisan organization which provides factual evaluations of the claims of and about political figures. I have cited it in my own writing, and will continue to do so. However, that FactCheck has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and good judgment does not mean that its work is infallible, as the VC has pointed out previously. The Encyclopedia Britannica also has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and impartiality, but the Britannica sometimes contains errors or overstatements.

FactCheck’s September 22, 2008, report on the National Rifle Association’s advertising critical claims that the NRA “distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.” FactCheck itself, though, has overstated its claims, and made several errors.

The NRA’s advertising points to various positions which Obama has taken over the years. Not one of these positions (with a single very dubious exception, discussed below) has been subsequently repudiated by Obama.

Much of FactCheck’s critique of the NRA is the mere recitation of vague platitudes by Obama claiming that he supports of the Second Amendment.

FactCheck fails to recognize that Obama's platitudes and the NRA's charges could be simultaneously true. For example, John McCain might sincerely say, “I strongly support First Amendment rights.” A group critical of McCain might take out advertising which says “McCain sponsored the most comprehensive restriction of political speech in American history, and he is an opponent of your First Amendment rights.” All the statement are true: McCain sponsored the McCain-Feingold act, which outlaws a great deal of speech related to federal elections; people who are strong First Amendment advocates can therefore conclude that McCain is a very serious threat to First Amendment rights. McCain, however, is doubtless sincere in his belief that the political speech restrictions are consistent with his support for First Amendment rights. His First Amendment is simply much smaller than the First Amendment which free speech groups like the ACLU support. FactCheck would be incorrect if it declared that the free speech group was making "false" charges which "distorted" McCain's views.

Likewise, the NRA is not distorting Obama’s record when they accurately point out his advocacy for draconian gun controls, even if Obama offers generic platitudes about Second Amendment rights. Obama may sincerely believe that the various measures he has promoted are consistent with the Second Amendment; the NRA disagrees, and it is not factually inaccurate for the NRA to say so.

On some of the charges, FactCheck appears not to have studied Obama’s words carefully. For example, one NRA claim is that Obama wants to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns.” FactCheck accurately reports that Obama did endorse such a position in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. (FactCheck also supplies the details of Obama’s 2008 claim that the questionnaire was filled out by an aide without Obama’s knowledge, even though Obama’s handwriting is on the cover of the questionnaire.) But FactCheck asserts that the NRA is lying because of Obama’s response to the same question in 2003: “While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety.”

The 2003 response hardly means that Obama does not favor a handgun ban. He simply said he recognized it as politically impracticable. A candidate can simultaneously support something, and consider it “politically impracticable.” For example, in a 1997 Connecticut Law Review article, Glenn Reynolds and I wrote in favor the historic and textual interpretation of the Congressional power over interstate commerce: that it applies to commercial activities conducted across state lines, and to the regulation of activities which are “necessary and proper” for regulating interstate commerce. Thus, I think that laws about who can possess guns (e.g., persons convicted of particular crimes, children, alcoholics, etc.) should be matters of state law, not federal law. (With the caveats that state laws cannot violate the Second Amendment, and that other federal powers might be legitimately used in certain situations; for example, congressional power over immigration might be an appropriate basis for a federal restriction on gun possession by illegal aliens.)

If I were running for Congress in 2008, and somebody asked “Do you favor repealing federal laws about the mere intrastate possession of guns?” I would probably explain that a complete repeal is “not politically practicable,” and would say that I would work instead for marginal improvements in the laws.

Now suppose my opponent puts out a brochure which says “Kopel favors repeal of federal laws on gun possession.” Is the opponent distorting my position beyond recognition? Well, probably not.

A good FactCheck article would point out the difference between my 1997 position and my current statement on what is “politically practicable.” But my very choice of the words “politically practicable” indicates that if political circumstances changed, so that a broad repeal were politically practicable, then I would support it.

Conversely, if I (or, Obama or McCain) were asked "Do you think that the federal government should require journalists to get a government license?" the response would not be "Licensing journalists is not politically practicable, but there are other steps the government could take to improve media quality."

So Obama’s 2003 acknowledgement that handgun prohibition was not “politically practicable” (at least for a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 2005) is consistent with support for handgun prohibition.

FactCheck concludes the section by citing Obama’s claim at an April 2008 debate “I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." The claim is, to say the least, highly dubious in light of the evidence about his 1996 questionnaire, and FactCheck should not have treated this dubious claim as the final word on the subject. FactCheck failed to report that during the Potomac Primaries a few weeks earlier, Obama had said that he supported the D.C. handgun ban, and considered it consistent with the Second Amendment

FactCheck also overlooked the Obama campaign’s statement when the Supreme Court granted cert. in the D.C. handgun case: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” and that “local communities” should have the ability “to enact common sense laws.” (Chicago Tribune, Nov. 20, 2007.)

On the day the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama campaign announced that he agreed with the Court’s decision because it affirmed an individual right. (The full quote is reproduced in another section of the FactCheck report.) Notably, Obama did not say that he agreed with the Court’s interpretation that the handgun ban was a violation of the individual right. Asked about the November 2007 statement supporting the D.C. ban, the campaign called the statement “inartful.” Not an inaccurate expression of Obama’s views—just “inartful.”

In sum, FactCheck's label of “False” for the NRA’s statement that Obama supports laws to “Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns" was based on sloppy reading of some of Obama's statements, and failure to report other statements explicitly in favor of handgun prohibition.

A similar error is repeated for "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm", which FactCheck calls "Misleading." FactCheck quotes a Jan. 15, 2008, interview with the late Tim Russert:

NBC's Tim Russert, Jan. 15: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
Obama: I don’t think that we can get that done.

Obama then went on to list some things which thought could be done. The phrase "I don't think we can get that done" has the same import as "not politically practicable." It does not convey opposition to the idea.

The NRA claims that Obama’s position includes: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense." FactCheck says this is “False.” FactCheck discusses Obama’s opposition to an Illinois bill to prevent localities with handgun bans from punishing a person who used a handgun in lawful self-defense on his or her own property. Obama’s statements in opposition to the bill (which are not quoted by FactCheck) explained that he was worried that the bill would erode local handgun bans. (At the time, Chicago and five of its suburbs banned handguns.)

FactCheck writes: “Letting the owner of an unregistered firearm escape the penalty for failing to register is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense.” Well, if you ban a person from having a handgun at all, you are certainly banning them from using it for self-defense in the home.

Moreover, the Washington, D.C., gun law--which Obama supported--forbade the use of any firearm in the home for self-defense. (Including a registered rifle, a registered shotgun, or a pre-1976 registered handgun legally possessed under the grandfather clause). The Supreme Court later declared the self-defense ban to be unconstitutional.

Another NRA claim which FactCheck says is "False" is: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting.” As FactCheck reports, the issue involves Obama’s support for legislation to expand the federal definition of armor-piercing ammunition. Almost all rifle ammunition used for hunting deer or larger animals will penetrate a bullet-resistant vest; such vests are designed to stop handgun ammunition, not rifle ammunition. (In part because rifles have longer barrels, their bullets generally have greater velocity, and hence greater kinetic energy, than handgun bullets.)

Obama supported a bill to give the Attorney General the administrative authority to ban any rifle ammunition which can penetrate the type of vests commonly used by police.

FactCheck accurately quoted a limitation in the bill: it would apply only to ammunition which is “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability." The “marketed” prong is easy, since rifle ammunition makers do not tout such capability in their advertising.

However, the “designed” language is broad enough to allow bans on anything. Almost every automobile in the United States is “designed” to drive over 100 miles per hour. The speedometers show this capability, and even if they did not, every automobile manufacturer is fully aware that its autos can be driven at very fast, unsafe speeds. The auto engines are “designed” to have a certain amount of power, and this “design” is based on the full knowledge that that auto can be driven over 100 mph. Among the definitions of "design" in Black's Law Dictionary is "The pattern or configuration of elements in something, such as a work of art."

Just as the deliberate configuration of the elements of every automobile can be accurately said to be “designed” to drive over 100 mph, so every deer-hunting round can be said to be “designed” to penetrate body armor. Notably, the ammunition ban language did not say "designed and intended."

FactCheck does quote Senator Kennedy, the sponsor of the bill, saying that he did not want to ban hunting ammunition. Nevertheless, the plain language of the bill, and not Senator Kennedy’s floor statements, were what would be enacted into law. If there were ever a judicial challenge to ban on particular rifle ammunition ban, a court might well find that the language of the statute, along with judicial deference to agency interpretation of the statute, meant that there was no need to look to legislative history.

FactCheck give NRA a "Partly True" for: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms." FactCheck agrees that Obama has declared his support for "assault weapon" bans, because he think that "assault weapons" are guns which belong only on "foreign battlefields." But FactCheck adds: "We're not sure where the NRA gets its claim that 'millions' of additional weapons would be covered." The answer is straightforward, in the Illinois legislature, Obama for SB 1195, which defines "assault weapons" much more broadly than the 1994 federal law. It included double-barrel and break-open shotguns in 28 gauge caliber and larger; and also banned .50 caliber rifles.

The FactCheck gives the NRA a rating of "Uncertain" to "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent" and "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America." Both these statements, FactCheck correctly reports, come from a newspaper report of Obama's 1999 description his gun control plan. (Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.) (At the time, he was running for the U.S. House of Representatives.) FactCheck notes that Obama has not pushed for these proposals since his election to the Senate, and adds, "We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response."

“Uncertain” is an awfully generous label, Obama-wise. Obama clearly announced he supported the particular policies. He has never said that he has changed his mind on those policies. His campaign was specifically offered a chance by FactCheck to say whether Obama had changed his mind, and the campaign refused.

Just because Obama is not pushing for something in Congress does not make the NRA's claim uncertain. FactCheck gives NRA a "True" for "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry." Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states which do not have procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry permits. (40 states issue under mostly objective standards, while 8 states give nearly limitless discretion to the issuing authority.) In the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama said he favored a national ban on concealed carry permits. Like the carry ban, the bans on gun stores and the 500% firearm and ammunition tax proposals do not become less true simply because Obama is not pushing them at present.

The NRA gets a "Mostly True" for "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime." FactCheck points to the relevant bill co-sponsored by Obama, and cites the Sentencing Project for the fact that 5.3 million felons who have served their sentences cannot vote. The Sentencing Project pointed out that most felony convictions are not for violent or gun crimes. So the NRA claim is “Entirely True.” The NRA never asserted that most felony convictions are for violent gun crimes.

"Unsupported" is how FactCheck describes: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment." FactCheck's reasoning is that "the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none."

That Obama has not announced a litmus test does not mean that it is unrealistic to expect him to appoint Justices who share his views on Second Amendment and on other matters of constitutional law. It would be reasonably expected that Obama appointees would take a similar approach of nominal support for the individual right, but finding that hardly any gun controls short of complete prohibition violate that right.

One final NRA claim does not get a FactCheck rating, but it does get a response that might as well as come from the Obama press office. That is: "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."

FactCheck supplies Obama's quote from Heller decision day, beginning with "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms..", and promising, "As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

Well, that Obama has "always believed" in the individual Second Amendment right did not prevent him from proposing a national ban on concealed carry, a ban on 90% of gun stores, a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammunition--as the FactCheck article itself reports. If a candidate proposed banning 90% of bookstores and a huge tax increase on books, it might be justifiable to predict that he would be "the most anti-book president in American history"--notwithstanding his proclaimed belief in the individual First Amendment right.

FactCheck calls the NRA prediction, "a pretty tall statement. We don't know how George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson might have felt about armor-piercing ammunition or assault weapons."

Fortunately, there haven't been many anti-gun Presidents, in U.S. history; and only the Clinton administration invested a large portion of its politcal capital in gun control. So President Obama would not have much competition in the "most anti-gun" contest.

We know that Washington and Jefferson were avid gun collectors, and that Jefferson recommended daily hunting as the best form of exercise. We also know that Jefferson instituted a government program to supply guns, at federal expense, to people who couldn’t own one. We know that neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson ever proposed banning a type of gun simply because it was useful on “battlefields.”

As far as we know, Obama has never fired a gun, or even held a gun in his hands. We do know that no President in American history has, in his pre-presidential career, endorsed so many sweeping prohibitions and other severe controls on American gun ownership.

The September 22, 2008, FactCheck on the NRA criticism of Obama is marred by the omission of crucial facts, one-sided and misleading presentations of issues, and thinly-concealed political advocacy. According to FactCheck, the NRA refused to answer FactCheck's request for explanations of its claims. If so, the refusal provides a partial explanation of why so many crucial facts were missing. Whatever the reasons behind the problems in the September 22 report, FactCheck should publish a substantially revised edition.