I have had suspicions about the impartiality of FactCheck.org for a while.
Some time ago the NRA the leading defenders of the second amendment in the US issued the following advertisement.
The Obama campaign went into hysterics wanting it banned. When I mentioned it I was told by some commentators that the ad was totally untrue and that FactCheck.org supported that view. Just to be fair to these dribbling idiots, I visited it so that I could quote it to disprove them.
I was stunned to read the following: -
“A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.
The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.”
The item ignores the fact that Obama has voted in favor of every piece of gun grabbing legislation that has come his way for his entire political career, preferring to concentrate only on what he has said after reinventing himself on the issue for the duration of the campaign.
He is not likely to honestly change his views so dramatically so quickly. I believe he would however be prepared to tell us that he has. The remarks about bitter small towners clinging to god and guns tells us what this opinionated elitist thinks on the issue, he disapproves of all three.
The Catskill Commentator has an article exposing Links that are disturbing:
You see FactCheck.org cited a lot by liberals these days. BHO has made a career of mentioning the site almost every day of his campaign.
Yet consider this:
The Annenberg Foundation is the parent organization and primary source of funding of the Annenberg Political Fact Check.
And because last year during the Heller case, the Annenberg Foundation gave $50,000 to the Brady Center when they advocated on behalf of D.C.’s gun ban which was one of the central issues in politics of the Second Amendment statement of Obama.
They probably should have mentioned it when they wrote the piece because learning that this supposedly objective and non-partisan group is run by a larger group that gives heavily to gun control causes when they’re writing a piece critiquing an ad by a gun rights organization may make people question their objectivity as well as the quality of their work. — Roger Thornhill